prompt
stringlengths 497
14.4k
| chosen
int64 0
1
| rejected
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"formula flick of guy who wants girl and guy who will lie to get next to girl and guy who will get best friend to help in outrageous way (comedus reliefus and no. ) to help deceive girl and etc. this one been done to death and and with rare exception of a few z rated outings and it been done better. stale plot aside and the leads are attractive and there a couple of good moments. jonathon schaech has done better and and his acting here came close to being phoned in. not a complete loss and but nothing new here in this tepid affair. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have tried to watch this so called comedy and but it very hard to bear. this is a bad and narrow minded and cliché ridden movie. definitively not funny and but very much boring and annoying and indeed. bad script and bad acting. it a complete waste of time and there remains nothing more to say and i am afraid. negative points. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 the worst romantic comedies (nay and worst movies) i have ever seen. boy (who works as a phone psychic. ) must pretend to be gay to move into apartment with woman of his dreams. hilarity does not ensue. boredom and light gay bashing and and horrible dialogue do. if you read brad meltzer and like his crappy dialogue and you will like this movie. be smart. avoid this. if you see it and destroy the copy. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"yet another insult and slap in the face to gay men everywhere. this lame attempt at a comedy has nothing to recommend it. once again we have an attractive traight hero who supposedly can not get any woman to be interested in him. yeah and right. and were also presented with the ympathetic and attractive gay friend who is actually a fat and balding and ugly old man whom the lead is supposed to find attractive. even i do not find him appealing and i am a fat and ugly old gay man (but thankfully not balding). whatever acting talent there may be here has been thrown away on a bad script and and truly awful direction. mr. sneedeker should be banned from filmdom and but then he no different than the countless other hacks working in hollyweed. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist and sexist and homophobic all at once and while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. atrocious performances and a cliche ridden screenplay and and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. two scenes were especially offensive the one in which schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross) and and the scene where eastwood is kissed by schaech best friend and who is pretending to be russian. after he leaves the room she exclaims fking foreigners. so much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in paris. jonathon schaech can be a likeable actor on screen and and is astonishingly good looking. it a shame he do not learn more from working with cutting edge gay director gregg araki on an earlier film and and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"they played this on the july 4th twilight zone marathon and this is and hands down and the worst twilight zone episode i have ever seen. it completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. even though twilight zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable and this one was completely out of place. compare this to legendary episodes like a stop at willoughby or midnight sun and and you realize there is no comparison. buster keaton did what he could with such terrible material and and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. even though he seemed to be giving it some effort and he must have needed the money. there no other explanation. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 one of the biggest fans of silent comedians and have probably reviewed more buster keaton films for imdb than any other person. every film he made from the beginning of his career to the early 30s with only two exceptions have i reviewed and so you can tell i am a major fan. it because of this that i found this episode so painful and hard to watch. i loved this man films and kept thinking buster and how could you. well and now that i think about it and i guess i can see why buster keaton starred in this god awful episode of the twilight zone. he would lost much of his fortune after a messy divorce in the early 1930s and his film career as a leading man was long passed as well. now and in the 1960s and keaton needed the money and loved his resurgence in popularity so he whored himself out to anyone willing to pay appearing in beach films and this mess of an episode of a great series. the biggest problem with the episode is that it is just terribly written and buster deserved much better. the show is supposed to be funny but isn not and instead of a homage to silent films is just painful to watch particularly with keaton putting that stupid time travel helmet on as well as all the poorly executed slapstick. do yourself a favor and skip this one it a pale imitation of the greatness that once was keaton career. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
" equals equals equals minor spoilers equals equals equals i am and like many others and a huge jerry bruckheimer fan. so when i saw all the beautiful posters hanging out front and and the trailer coming by before mi represent2 and expectations were rising. a jerry bruckheimer production. big cars. nic cage and fresh from an oscar angelina jolie. what can possibly go wrong. a lot. the script is neither funny (which it tries really hard to be) nor exciting. you put in a black person who is constantly making racist jokes about himself and wooh haa. you have got comedy. i do not think so. excitement is totally out of the picture. first of all (and this is probably said many times) there are no sympathetic characters so who cares who gets killed. if you can stomach the premise that a psycho is gonna kill nic brother unless he steals 50 cars in 4 days and next thing you know is that kip (the brother) is walking with nic in the streets again. is this excitement. think not. then comes the best bit the romance between nic and angelina. she actually looks bored having to utter all these stupid lines to nic. do you have a girlfriend. are you seeing anybody. what went wrong. etc. then there only one sparkle of hope left represent the car chases. theyre disappointing to say the least and because the trailer made it look like it was full of them and and there only one. a very long one and caught in irritatingly hectic camera movement. i really had trouble following the action. so is it an action movie. a thriller. a romantic comedy. there no need to decide and just avoid this horrible mess. i will give negative stars and and i feel like i am being generous. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie should be shown to film school students as an example of what not to do. the original kicked some major tire squealing butt and this horrible disaster breaks the cardinal rule of bruckheimer films and which is represent we all know they suck and but they have great action. this film has no action. this film is boring. where are the cars. where are the chases. where the tension. where the suspense. where the rush. where. this isn not really a movie at all and it a bad commercial. 50 cars in 24 hours. that is wrong. they have 3 days to steal them and the ad is wrong. how bad is that. the leads acting is stiff and wooden and forced. the villain and the cop and the others. who cares. they utter their pointless lines and they serve the illogical plot. they slog through it the best they can as the music video director says do not worry we will make a lot of fast cuts and no one will notice how bad the film is or we will fix it with lots of loud music the script isn not really a script at all and it more like a list of cliches with an ending that is a total ripoff of represent warning possible spoiler 5 4 3 2 1 the fugitive. the biggest crime of all is the underuse of vinnie jones and man. this is the baddest and coolest mofo since jules in pulp fiction. and what do they do. they make him a mute who hardly in the film. make vinnie the main villain and he could have saved the film. how could they have been so dumb. how. how. why. the original film is very entertaining with a cool trick at the end that gets the driver away. the original has a great 40 minute chase that delivers. go find the original. or if youre craving some real car chase action go rent ronin. the chases in ronin raised the bar by which all other car chases will now be judged. bruckheimer and cage had all that money and all those resources and all that experience and and they can not even come close to matching a film made 25 years ago for $250 and 000. how can that be. you feel like you got ripped off after seeing this movie. where i was once excited to see coyote ugly and remember the titans and pearl harbor and now i say represent god help us 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:
"warning represent review contains slight spoilersthere a parallel universe out there where gone in 60 seconds is a dark and edgy and controversial independent movie. unfortunately in this dimension gone. is a flashy and vacuous and testosterone fuelled moronfest starring nicolas cage. for reasons not really worth getting into and he and his large number of cronies have four days to steal fifty expensive cars and only one of which has an alarm. this crew consists of the guy with the funny shaped ears who rumoured to be the new superman while a guy who conducted electricity in the x files while an ex professional footballer and two token black men. their enemies are cops and rival car thieves and bilborough from cracker and his manchester accent suitably flattened and broadened for american audiences who are now used to that sort of thing since daphne in frasier. there also angelina jolie and who gets no character while save to be a receptacle to men sexual desires. she and cage are supposed to be old flames and which is odd and as they never have anything approaching a normal conversation in all of the film overlong 135m running time. in fact and characterisation is so poor that whenever anyone has a moment a violin plays in the background to accentuate the emotion. it no spoiler to reveal that vinnie jones (who recreates his famous paul gasgoine hand ball manoeuvre and is quite menacing when silent) only gets one line while not because his inability to speak is integral to the plot but because his eloquent summing up of the film dubious morality after appearing mute the whole way through is funny. allegedly. after he struggles through it in his not quite acting but it will do london drawl and cage quips i always thought you were from long island. my ribs and as you might imagine and were well and truly tickled. in fact humour is the most undeveloped aspect and from the tactless comedy policeman to the two token black characters. this sees the biggest aspect of hollywood take hold while why is it that a black man cannot appear in a major motion picture without being constantly aware of his skin tone and endlessly refer to it. the younger man and who and like the elder and jive talks for the whole duration and proclaims represent us black people do not like the cold . were tropical people. he then goes on to express an urge to smoke a joint and watch roots. he is and of course and parodying the image of black people and but how funny is that. his older counterpart cannot speak without referring to himself and and thereby his colour and in third person. my black ass this and my black ass that. does anyone know any black people who actually speak like that. thought not. the film soundtrack is played almost non stop and with increasing volume and some of the tracks especially apollo 440 don not stop the rock so loud theyre actually more audible than the sound effects and dialogue. the surroundsound system even separates the two to such a degree that it makes them sound like two different films running together. no background music concept here and it the aural equivalent of trying to watch a film while someone at the back of the cinema has their stereo turned up full blast. keep that music down and young man. this isn not the worst film in the world and in many ways i enjoyed it. it just that it predictable and lazy and witless and with minimal effort in its construction. apparently box office expectations are considerably down for this movie. after being force fed junk for several years it appears the general public are starting to wake up to the fact. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 review may contain some spoilers. the remake of the classic 1974 car chase movie gone in 60 seconds begins well. actually it is well acted and the plot moves quite well. but even a big hollywood budget doesn not change the fact that the original plot was more believable. for those who do not know and the original plot had the thieves working as insurance inspectors. who would suspect them. but even with a change to nearly every aspect of h. b. halicki original and the remake is a very good movie and until we get to the final chase scene and the part of the 74 version that made it great. the one in this version is watered down and only 10 minutes and and it culminates in a monster special effect that takes all believability out of the chase. where the original chase was very believable and the star was a stunt driver who did all his own stunt and the remake falls flat in the last 15 minutes. my advice and if you want to watch a classic car chase film and fine the original in the bargain bin at your local rental joint and stay clear of the new remake. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"randall memphis raines is a retired master car thief who is forced back into the game when his younger brother faces death for not filling an order for british crime boss raymond calitri. the job involves lifting 50 cars in 24 hours or calitri will enact his punishment. so raines quickly assembles a crew he can trust and sets about the task to hand. but the police are on to him and some of the cars on the list are not easy takes. it would seem a near impossible job to complete. it got quite a cast has gone in 60 seconds and nicolas cage and angelina jolie and robert duvall and will patton and delroy lindo and vinnie jones and giovanni ribisi and christopher ecclestone and scott caan and timothy olyphant. all of whom deserve better. enough acting horsepower there to propel a porsche 998 turbo. trouble is and is that this is very much a case of too many cars overstocking the car park and mucho characters and not enough zest. from the off we are in no doubt that this is a bruckheimer or simpson production and bonkers script laced with loud noises and lashings of cheese and scattergun editing and and directed with sledgehammer subtly by dominic sena. it essentially a big budget remake of h. b. halicki 1974 indie movie of the same name and with the premise offering up the potential for an adrenalin fuelled car based movie. potential that sadly is never realised. there one or two high impact moments and daft for sure and but enjoyable none the less. but if you pardon the pun and the film never gets out of first gear and it more content to labour with its ream of characters who mope about trying to make the boorish screenplay {scott rosenberg} work. car fans will get something from it {the cars are ace on the eye} and as will fans of unintentional comedy movies {check out ecclestone carpenter grief moment}. but no and it really rather poor all told. 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 watched this because i thought there were going to be a lot of car chases and cool cars to gawk at. guess i was lied to. this movie is very boring. the movie starts out kip raines(giovanni ribisi) sitting outside a porsche dealership checking to see if they have the right car. when they confirm it the right one and kip gets a brick out of the trunk and chucks it at the window and shattering it. he gets the porsche while his friend gets the keys. they start up the car and take off into the night. they deliver it to a warehouse only to have been followed by the police. so and the whole crew ditches all the cars and go their separate ways. then and we get a glimpse of memphis raines. he is giving a little speech to a bunch of kids at a go kart track. then and he is confronted by atlee jackson(will patton). atlee tells memphis that his brother kip is in deep bleep. memphis is known as one of the most notorious car thieves in los angeles. memphis heads to a junkyard and meets raymond calitri(christopher ecclesten). this guy threatens to kill kip if memphis doesn not deliver 50 cars within 72 hours. there are a few problems with this film represent 1. story represent the first 48 in movie hours take place when cage and duvall are looking for a crew and planning everything out. the last 12 in movie hours are a waste. 2. the cars represent you see maybe 10 cars out of the 50 as the movie advertises. so and where are the other 40 cars. why do not we get to see them. 3. the chase represent the chase at the end of the movie was a joke. it was not suspenseful at all. 4. the dog represent somewhere in the movie and the dog eats the burgers and swallows three keys as well. this is impossible. the keys were flipped open. the keys would have severely damaged the dog esophagus and stomach and and large intestines. the guys suggest giving the dog laxatives to help him poop it out. this would not work. the dog will get a lot of diarrhea but no keys. it was stated in jackass after ryan dunne stuck a toy car up his rectum. take laxatives and lots of diarrhea and but no car. same case with the dog. 5. the cop during the chase represent when eleanor breaks down for a few minutes and nicholas cage tries desperately to start up the car. you see a police cruiser behind him who isn not looking at his car at all. but and right when nicholas cage starts the engine up again and the police officer jerks his head to the right and sees the car and and immediately begins to chase after him. it is stupid. so and right when he heard the engine start and and saw the car and he knew that was the car he was looking for. how does he know it the right car. he only sees the back of it. overall and the movie is boring. there is no action. there are very few cars. the movie is stupid. i have never seen the original but i plan to. i give this movie 1 star out of 10. get the fast and furious instead. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the remake of h. b. halicki classic seventies chase film is simply horrible. along with vanishing point and gone in 60 seconds represent the quintessential car chase films. the remake takes the original and stands it on its head. whereas halicki gave us 75% car chase and 25% supporting drama and in giss 2000 we get 25% car chase and 75% supporting drama. cage as super man and saves his brother and kisses the girl. mtv edits and tits and ass. save your money and rent the original. at least halicki do not live to see his baby (he wrote and produced and directed and and starred in the 74 film) degraded in this manner. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this was a horrible film. i gave it 2 points and one for angelina jolie and a second one for the beautiful porsche in the beginning. other than that the story just plain sucked and cars racing through cities wasn not so new in 1970. the happyend was probably what annoyed me the most and seldomly seen anything so constructed. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 shows us nothing original. every idea or (action) scene can be found in many previously released movies. fabulous nick is completely plain here. even will patton is calm and evil nor good. mr. duvall is ok and but has a very small part. so does angelina and so how can we determine her newly acclaimed stardom. overall and there are too many characters and so that nobody and nothing is especially detailed. this makes the movie easy to forget. too bad and do not you think. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"1975 master of the flying guillotine is an amazing and wonderful film to watch. this isn not because the fighting is particularly inspired or because the film makes any sense at all. it because the film is so silly and so over the top that it is a camp classic bad and but enjoyably bad. the film stars a blind guy who has a frisbee like device on a chain that chops off people heads as he expertly throws this at his foes. who cares that the physics are impossible or that the film features such silly things as fighters with 12 foot long papier mache arms or that the guy was blind. it just a ball to watch from start to finish and one of my favorite bad films and great to see with friends. because of this film and i was eager to see the fatal flying guillotines (1977) and though sadly it turned out not to be a sequel but a bit of a knock off taking many of the ideas from the original but neglecting to make the film as coherent or watchable. sure and it silly fun and but it never comes close to master of the flying guillotine in entertainment value. like the original film and there are these weird flying devices that sever heads and but they are quite different with circular saw blades and almost a mind of their own. there also is no blind guy but instead are a bunch of baddies who really have no depth nor does the audience understand exactly what occurring in this english dubbed version and as the plot is completely incomprehensible. however and at the same time and some of the martial arts action is very good. while not up to the high standards of most bruce lee or sonny chiba films and the action is worthwhile despite the ludicrous and often confusing plot. overall and this is a film that martial arts fans may like (despite its many and many and many and many shortcomings) and but also one that others will probably turn off or laugh hysterically at instead of enjoying the action because the film is just so ludicrous. but and most importantly and it never comes close to being as funny or watchable as master of the flying guillotine. too bad. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"although there flying guillotines as part of the title of this movie and it has no connections to the original flying guillotines (1975) and its sequel flying guillotines ii (1978). the two originals are masterpieces of kung fu movie and still stands out as a classic. this is a much inferior copy of the original and and even as a regular kung fu movie and it below average. first of all and this movie doesn not have much acting. it one senseless fight scene after another and and flying guillotine doesn not even play a major part in them. story is about some shaolin monks who are tracking down some villains who have took off with a sacred book and and an evil prince who owns part of this book is part of the plot. the same evil prince has plans to lure the monks in and use the flying guillotines on them. there are four movies with flying guillotine as part of its title. this in my opinion is of least quality. the design of the flying guillotine in this movie is different from the other three indicating that this movie was produced by a different entity from the other three. the movie has no chemistry asides from being unintentionally funny due to poor production. best skip this and watch the two originals. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 got extremely silly when things started to happen. i couldn not care less about any of the characters while susan walters was so annoying and and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. can not quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film and things do not quite carry off. my dad told me it s stupid movie. i should have listened to him. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i read the comment of chris_m_grant from united states. he wrote represent a fantastic documentary of 1924. this early 20th century geography of today iraq was powerful. i would like to thank chris and people who are interested in bakhtiari nomads of iran and the zagros mountains and landscapes and have watched the movie grass and a nation battle for life. these traditions you saw in the movie have endured for centuries and will go on as long as life endures. i am from this region of iran myself. i am a bakhtiari. chris and i am sorry to bother you but bakhtiari region of zardkuh is in iran not in irak as you mentioned in your comment. iran and irak are two different and distinct countries. taking an iranian for an irankian is almost like taking an american for an mexican. thanks and ziba. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"documentary about nomadic persians making a treacherous traverse of massive mountains to get their herds to grass. watching this silent and black and white feature and marred in part by a twink twink twink oriental music score that could not have been used in the original exhibition and is even duller than it sounds. the spectacular scenery is lost on a small black and white screen and and there is an utter failure to establish any kind of plot line. i loved nanook of the north and march of the penguins and but despised this movie and notwithstanding the similarity of the theme. physical hardships alone are just not that interesting. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 problem i find with this title is that i am not sure if the director is trying to produce a documentary or movie. a blend of the two genres just doesn not work and that leaves the whole thing hung in the middle of nowhere. this is more so as the director has picked the most extremes of what is supposed to be happening around our everyday life making it an unconvincing documentary. if it is meant to be a thriller or drama this is too dull and monotonous. in either case and what is the moral or the message which the director is trying to convey to the audience. that around us there are people who ill treat others who are willing to be ill treated. that there are many crazy lunatics around us. so. so what. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 in no way entertainment but more of a look deep into the depths of the darkest side of human behaviour. loosely linking a half a dozen stories of the worst kind of depravities and perverted sex and greed and violence and intolerance. all the action is played out over a few very hot and sticky days during a heatwave in vienna and the heat is maybe responsible for some of the anger and hate in the film. for me the treatment of the retarded girl by the security equipment salesman was about the worst episode and closely followed by the scenes of drunkenness and perversity in the lags flat. you will be gripped and i hope horrified by this film. i hated it but i felt compelled to see it through. negative for fun positive for displaying aman as he sometimes is. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie reminds me of irréversible (2002) and another art work movie with is a violent and radical approach of human nature. i did not like the movie but i cannot say that it is a bad movie and it is just special. i reminds me also of camping cosmos (1996) where a bunch of low class figures are residents of a camp at the sea in belgium. the same description of people living together and side by side against their wills and with all the confrontation of characters that do not match together. i also thought about the books by the french writer emile zola who was a writer of the style that is naturalism. i did not like the movie and i also do not like the people who are in it. they all seem so vulgar and without any basic good taste. one could ask the question why do they live and they all seem to be on this planet a a member of a big farce and forced to live against their will. or you could say represent the hell is on this world. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"earlier today i got into an argument on why so many people complain about modern films in which i encountered a curious statement represent the character development in newer movies just isn not nearly as good or interesting as it used to be. depending on the film(s) in question and this can be attributed to a number of things and sometimes generic special effects and plot driven hollywood garbage like war of the worlds and but in the case of over the top and uninteresting attempts at social commentary and a desperate struggle to put art back into cinema and it movies like dog days that are to blame. i normally have a very high tolerance for movies and no matter how dull or pointless i find them (ranging from good and long ones like andrei rublev and dogville and to ones i have considered painful to sit through a la alpha dog and wild wild west). i shut this movie off 45 minutes in and which is 30 minutes more than i actually should have. i wasn not interested in any of the characters whatsoever and found nothing substantial beyond a thin veil of unfocused pessimism. in an attempt to say something about the dregs of society and this film too easily falls into being self indulgent and trite and and exploitative in a very sincere sense. granted and i have seen many disturbing movies on the same subject and but there are so many better films out there about depressing and pathetic people (happiness and gummo and kids and salo and storytelling and irreversible) that actually contain characters of great emotional depth and personality. dog days had none more than an eighth grader distaste for society and choosing to ignore any true intelligence about the way people actually are and and instead choosing to be a dull and awful and and hopelessly unoriginal attempt at a work of art. this isn not a characterization of the unknown or a clever observation into the dregs of society and it just boring and nothing worth caring about. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck and such as rambo 3 and baise moi and deep impact) but mr. seidl almost succeeded. hundstage was a truly awful experience. anyone who sees this movie will think that austrians are a miserable and pathetic bunch of retards. it shows a world where love and humanity do not exist and a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason to distract from their own miserable existence. by choosing a documentary like style with non professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of austrian shock cartoonist deix) director seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in austrian (european. western. ) suburbs. the viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies and violence against women and handicapped people and madness and degradation. but this isn not social criticism. this is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. instead you get bad acting and bad cinematography and bad filmmaking. if anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. this is pseudo social criticism with a sledge hammer. and it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. it shows ugly people that is not the reason why i hate it. but it depicts average people in an ugly and misanthropic way. and this is why this film is truly despicable. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 you are looking for a film the portrays the pointless and boring existence of middle class lives caught in a web of non communication and false ideals and then this is the film for you. if you also what the film to be engaging and keep your interest and then you should probably look elsewhere. there are many films that do this far better. for example and try some of the darker films by bergman. the filmmaker felt that in order to show the spiritual poverty of the middle class he should subject the viewer to one agonizingly dull and vacuous incident after another until the film finally comes to its tortuous and pathetic end. if you value your time there are far better ways to spend two hours and like cleaning your house and for example. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"fragmentaric movie about a couple of people in austria during a heatwave. this kind of movie has been done more often and and most of all and better. the stories do not really have anything to do with each other and apart from the pathetic finale represent people are cruel. ugly flesh and unpleasant people and a movie that goes on way too long without really making a point. ultra realistic. hardly. boring. indeed. not even gorgeous franzisca weiss can save this one. 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 do not think it could be done and but something has come along and replaced open house a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate as the worst film i have ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life. it was touted as the best film in montreal most recent film festival and which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry. watching this movie was like a little slice of hell. it from austria and and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of short cuts and blue velvet scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. there the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him and the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child and the über annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists. the list goes on. forever. much like the two hours plus i spent in that theatre. yes and the characters interact and but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. i couldn not say if they were any good as actors and as and according to the subtitles and they were given lines that were the austrian equivalent of you are so lame. they certainly do not have to learn many and as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene. this is no gummo and or any of the aforementioned movies. there is no art to discover and and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your never walk out during a movie policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene and if that sounds appetizing and it not and unless youre one of few who doesn not find the idea of your parents having sex and with a few local middle aged couples and to boot revolting). this movie was offensive to me. not the flabby nudity and not the cringe inducing soundtrack and not the shockless scenes involving guns. i was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. i was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see dog days and come out wondering if that was the best us montrealers could find. most of all and i was offended that and somehow and the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 appalling piece of rubbish. who are all these people who blubber on about how good this is. yes and it arty while and yes and it foreign and but . that not enough. the plot is boring and disjointed and like a reality show but not so slickly made. the people are intrinsically uninteresting while but as characters they do not have enough depth to feel empathy for them. if they are based on real people then i feel very and very sorry for them. the violence (and some of it is very violent) seems quite ostentatious and gratuitous. it like the producer has visions of being quenton tarantino. not that i think very much of him and either. and oh yes represent if i had neighbours like these and i would move. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 sucks ass. something about a heatwave in some european country and complete trash. there nothing going for this movie whatsoever. maybe 30 seconds of sex but that it. there is a very annoying chick who hitches rides with people and really pisses me off. this movie is complete rash and you shouldn not subject yourself to watching it. i regret it it very boring. i would rate it zero but i can not. no body in their right mind should see this. i am sure you will regret it completely i did. how could they think up something this bad. even mystery men was better. mystery men. that sucks. that movie wasn not worth being made. complete waste of time. the characters in this are very hard to understand and i good very very very 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:
"despite being a huge fan of fred astaire and ginger rogers movies and it wasn not until about 6 years ago that i first saw follow the fleet. i knew all the songs from an old astaire or rogers record (yes and vinyl) but knew nothing of the plot. unfortunately and while the songs are catchy and ginger rogers character is sweet and funny and you just can not like bake baker. while trying to make up to his longtime partner and he continually sabotages her career. his character doesn not have the usual humour and elan of the other films astaire characters. worth watching for the songs and a great solo tap routine by ginger rogers. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 hard to believe that this is a sequel to henry fool. hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. while henry fool is refreshing and witty and comical and fay grim is slow and boring and and doesn not go anywhere. where has the wit gone. i am baffled. it is 10 years since i saw henry fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. fay grim is painful to watch. this is no fault of the actors and who are good (parker posey) or great (jeff goldblum) the blame lies entirely with the plot and the dialog and and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). a huge disappointment. sorry i couldn not pay attention to the plot and i was so bored and so disappointed. if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy henry fool so much. the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other. there is no continuity in the characters personalities. it all a fraud to entice fans of henry fool to watch the sequel. i am switching this off now henry in some sort of jail with a taliban. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 say i would figure in that line because and frankly and i have not seen a hal hartley movie until now. it not that i haven not heard of him though and as he was seen as one of those small ny filmmakers (when i say small i mean even smaller than jim jarmusch) and who made ultra personal projects on limited budgets. in an ironic way and much as with pasolini salo and though in a slightly different context and fay grim interests me to see some of hartley more acclaimed features and because there seems to be at least present some semblance of talent behind it and as if hartley could be a very good filmmaker who may be so good he just taken a big experimental blunder. or and on the other hand and he could just be someone far too impressed with his own idiosyncrasies and would be godard like cinematic collisions. i can not quite explain the story and which may or may not be a problem i suppose and however it not really in due to not having seen the film that preceded fay grim and henry fool. i think even if i had that experience it do not make too much of a difference based on the final results. there a lot of international espionage and a double plot wrapped inside of another that fallen through the fake pockets of the title character and played in an aloof way by parker posey (not sure if that good or bad either and maybe both) and and also involving a cia operative (jeff goldblum and as usual a solid presence amid the mania and even conjuring some laughs) and not to mention an orgy laden picture box and and author henry fool. it not that the script is totally impenetrable and however much it goes into over extended loopholes just for the sake of it and because there are some touches of witty or affectingly strange dialog. quite simply and the direction just sucks. harltey is in love with the third man and which is fine and but he imposes a consistently headache inducing style of everything being tilted in angle and with characters having to get into frame equally oddly. not since battlefield earth and in fact and has a director come off so annoyingly in trying to make the unnecessary choice of titled angles for some bizarre dramatic effect and only this time hartley isn not amid a cluster f and he mostly responsible for it. this and along with the crazy wannabe godard title cards that pop in here and there and some a little amusing and some just totally stupid and and the montage segments all in still shots and and a couple of moments involving action that almost call to mind ed wood and undermine any of the potential that is in the script and which is already fairly hard to decipher. in a way and it fascinating to watch how bad this all goes and but a kind of fascination that comes in seeing the flip side to total creative control on a sort of small scale story. but let it be known represent you will likely not come across a more wretchedly pretentious example of american independent film making this year. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i haven not seen henry fool and but after watching fay grim i am not sure i want to. maybe hartley aims to be the anti thriller director he sure succeeded with this yawner. based on the official description woman discovers that her dead husband manuscript contains material that could pose a threat to national security i expected a taut geopolitical drama. instead i got flimsy structure and goofy dialog and flabby characterizations and a convoluted plot and and a tone that shifts so often it suggests that hartley changed the script according to his mood at any given time. i can hang for a long time with a frustrating and hard to follow plot (e. g. duplicity) because i figure that the loose ends eventually will come together. even when they do not and or they do but they leave lingering questions (e. g. duplicity) and sharp writing and acting can hold one interest. but half way through fay grim i reached a deadly realization i do not know what was going on and and i do not care. too bad and because i really like parker posey and reduced here to working with an absurd part that asked her to morph from indifferent and estranged wife and indifferent and clueless mother to tough and shrewd international player capable of psychological mano a mano with terrorists. there also bad casting. jeff goldblum can be very good and but he not capable of overcoming miscasting as a cia operative. he looks almost as uncomfortable in the role as i was watching him in it. his cia sidekick is worse while he looks like a refugee from the quarterfinals of american idol (are there really young cia agents with big licks of hair rakishly draped over their foreheads. ). then there the sticky question of the characters ages. goldblum was 54 when he made fay grim while thomas jay ryan and who plays henry fool and was 44. neither was made to look or seem older than their actual ages. yet and a key point in the story is that they served as cia agents in nicaragua back in the 70s. goldblum character would have been in his 20s then while henry fool would have been a teenager. was hartley being quirky or lazy. the problems are too numerous to list. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this is a low budget spoof of the espionage genre. to help frame your expectations and you should know that represent (1) the acting is wildly heavy handed. the stars are having great fun delivering their lines with excessive eye movement and frequent hand gestures and and off key pacing. (2) the script deliberately lacks continuity and plausibility. oftentimes lines are abruptly jarring and humorous because they have absolutely no relevance to previous plot elements. (3) shots are frequently framed in off balance angles and poking fun at genre excesses. (4) a pop eyed jeff goldblum delivers complex and classically preposterous dialog in a winningly sarcastic manner. the film has a guiding intelligence and deliberately starting with a plot element stolen from the b films of the 1930 represent a secret code with a structure that would defy explanation by carl sagan. the film over the top acting is used mostly for comic effect during the first 90 minutes. in an early running gag and fay grim son ned is so frequently told to leave that you can not help chuckling while feeling sorry for the lad. parker posey nicely choreographed fall from bed also helps set a humorous tone early in the film. the film slow pacing does not enhance the comedy elements or the drama elements that later emerge. the film impact as drama is significantly lessened by the early comedy. moreover and it is hard to be overly involved with the characters and their fates when the early portions of the film are so sarcastic. the musical score is intentionally heavy handed and and i found this (and the off kilter camera angles) more irritating than humorous. the over the top acting and the implausible and nearly incomprehensible plot of conspiracies or counter conspiracies and and the slow pacing will grind on many viewers. the movie is much too long at 158 minutes. that said and fans who are receptive to the film sarcasm might want to watch again . using closed captioning to best catch the intelligent ridiculousness of the dialog. the film was too slow for me and the sarcasm felt more heavy handed than light hearted. but and the comedy may well appeal to your tastes. the film is worth a view for those who enjoy independent films and fans of director hal harley and or devotees of parker posey (who has the most camera 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:
"first off and i really loved henry fool and which puts me in a very small pool of movie goers. parker posey is one of best actresses on screen today. but this film was a full out travesty. watching hartley and the actors talk about the film in the extras so full of pride and and making pointless analogies to star wars was stomach turning. this was hype on the producers part (hdnet) realized to the max. a true example of the emperor and his new clothes. mostly i feel that hal has spoiled henry fool forever. i do not think i can ever see it again in it pure and innocent light. remember hal and you can fool some of the people some of the time. etc. the director would be nowhere today if all he did was churn out meaningless garbage. sadly and it a pure example of the lesson taught in the film adaptation. the story must be exciting and active and or its box office hopes are dim indeed. never mind a decent story. for the actors and it was like trying to act in a straitjacket. the score and i believe hartley and is tasteless. with drum hits walking all over dialog. there was one apple soundtrack loop i recognized that gave me a smile. when i saw the trailer and i thought and oh and theyre just trying to grab a new audience. but it really this ridiculous ride. i would be happy to spoil this movie for you and but it been done. it rotten. the fool franchise is dead. long live henry fool. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have been a fervent hal hartley supporter since i saw his short surviving desire in high school and and even then was still completely unmoored by his searingly brilliant henry fool. but this 10 year later sequel is not only unnecessary and it disgraceful. after a choppy and expeditious start and fay grim devolves into pseudo intellectualism and flat out boredom and and finally unwarranted and unwanted nihilism. and that just the plot. the majority of the new faces are as frivolous and poorly developed as the movie represent one particularly flat character ends up hogging half the time we spend with the infamous henry fool himself and and it his only spoken scene in the film. jeff goldblum agent fulbright and it seems and is the only bright character (a pun surely intended by hartley as well). how and then and is he left. spoiler dead via a car bombing and easily making this the gentle natured hartley most violent film to date and and tonally all wrong in a film that already all wrong from the word go. as for the other new characters and angus james and ned fool (or is it grim. ) and not to mention fay herself. well and i would not spoil their fates and as the movie does a good enough job of that all on its own (when it isn not busying itself with yet another godawful canted angle and which gives the disconcerting impression that hartley is moving backwards from auteur to crappy film student). this piece is a complete disaster and a dreadful mess that isn not even good humored enough to revel in its messiness. instead it self indulgently crams the typically fun hipster pretenses of its director into the real world and one uglier and meaner than it need be but not nearly ugly or mean enough to come close to having anything to say. in doing so and hartley tracks sht all over my memories of these people and the marvelous world he originally created for them. i have rarely been so depressed at the movies and and i am counting leaving las vegas and which at least developed fresh new characters we grew to love before destroying them and instead of immediately disregarding characters already beloved. grim and indeed. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"you must be kidding. let entertain the possibility that parker posey is really an actress and and not just some entry in the quirk of the month club of actors. really and unless this is meant to be a tongue in cheek satire on david mamet terse and confusing dialog delivered alternately in machine gun rapidity or monotone (think ben stein) blandness or a flat out dry comedy while this film has got to be in the running for a rotten tomato award or worse. as if the stiff and uncomfortable posey weren not enough and we have got the stiffer and even more uncomfortable jeff goldblum. there more wood in this film than a toothpick factory. adding to this already bizarre casting and are several other roles and all populated by forgettable actors and who look or sound like escapees from america next top model and don pardo and or even the kid and who pronounces the word been like bean and which just brings our attention to the fact that there is so little to like about this film and we are analyzing his accent to guess if he canadian or not. i think i laughed heartily in places that are supposed to be serious and and took seriously sections that are meant to be humorous. even the soundtrack sounds like a caricature of alarik jans music for mamet the house of games. if taken as a spoof and the film is almost droll while if taken seriously and just a self conscious piece of drek. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"be warned. this movie is such a mess. it a catastrophe. don not waste your time with this one. i warned you. the acting and story and dialogue and music. basically everything is so over the top and it absolutely annoying and ridiculous. it made me want to throw up (if the dialogue or acting or story wasn not doing it and it everyone being shot crooked). you will feel like youre watching a comedy. the problem is and the parts that are supposedly funny isn not even funny. the acting and story and cinematography and you can feel everything is just trying waaaay too hard but it never succeeds. practically every shot is canted and but so what. this movie just feels like a student film. no wonder they shot this in hd because it would be a waste to spend more money to shoot this on film. if youre easily amused or like poor acting and writing and editing and directing and full of clichés and everything that forced in your face and oh and did i mention poor acting. (well and actually and it not all the actor fault it the director. ) then i guess you will like this movie. i had to watch this for a class. i would have turned it off right away if i could. if you still can not tell by now and i hated this movie. it made me want to throw up and get my time back. at least i do not have to pay for this garbage. jeff goldblum and you know. the guy from jurassic park or independence day and is in this movie but he sure went downhill from then accepting roles for movies like this catastrophe. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"despite the lavish production numbers and wonderful costumes this film is a chore to watch. the murder mystery plot is just a vehicle to mount the musical numbers on but it often brings the proceedings to a staggering halt besides not being very involving. although there has obviously been a lot of money spent on them the numbers are badly staged and poorly photographed. it obviously a pre code film because the girls often wear very little clothing and there even a song singing the praises of marijuana. the performances are all one note although it nice to see carl brisson in a musical but when victor mclaglen and as the police lieutenent and lurches into view for the umpteenth time on the hunt for clues and you may want to throw in the towel or at least fast forward to the next number. pity the patrons who were trapped in the cinema on its release though. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 always love the bill because of its great script and characters and but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. if you look at promotional pictures or posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging or kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. this proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing police drama to an average type of television soap. when i watch it i feel like i am watching a police version of coronation street or something similar. i have to say i still like the bill as i am interested in police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that the bill used to have. i want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over. as for the script and characters they have both gone downhill and most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and i am not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren not and its just that they lack the tough looks and personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble. overall being one of the only police programs on television these days and the bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch and but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible and unreal television soap. recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved 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:
"veteran sleazeball bruno mattei is at it again with this erotic thriller that clearly echoes joel schumacher 8mm. but and as expected and mattei does his movie on a minuscule budget so that it already looks obscure when it newly released. after her daughter gets abducted and a mother enters the dark world of underground pornography and because the kidnappers belong to an international organization that direct snuff films as long as the exclusive clients pay well. the search for her daughter does not only lead the mother across europe and but also into prostitution. she goes to bed with some guys to get her clues. when she finally reaches contact with the snuff organization lead by the mysterious doctor hades and she getting into great danger herself. there is not much good to say about this one and even though it starts promising. problem is that the movie is by far not as sleazy or explicit as one might expect from the director who made films like blade violent. snuff trap (which was first released in russia. ) is neither gory enough nor does it contain the amount of nudity and sex to really keep the viewer attention. the plot isn not that special either and except maybe for the surprisingly many different locations throughout europe. the ending is hugely disappointing. the acting isn not really remarkable either and except for anita auer who plays doctor hades represent she looks and acts extremely creepy. you do not want to meet her like this in a dark alley (or your bedroom and for that matter). all in all and snuff trap only appeals to collectors of bruno mattei films. but it good to see the man back on the helm again represent it was his first thriller since 1994 giallo gli occhi dentro. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 terrible. every line is stolen from 8mm (the italian dubbed version and at least). if you like trash. real trash and give it a try while but beware represent this ain not the so bad it good kind of flick. in its cheapness and it may really look like a porno but and believe me and if youre looking for snuff and s and m and hardcore and softcore. or even an ordinary erotic thriller and go find something else in store. i am telling you this and cause the absolutely uninspired and unconvincing shooting and acting and plot and dialogues (the only good lines and as i said before and are the ones they stolen from joel schumacher 8mm. ) will bore you to tears in a few minutes and the happy ending is absolutely revolting. i will give it one star represent a half for the sudden shot in the back scene and after the eyes of the victim monologue (stolen from 8mm as well) and a half for mom and daughter sexy bodies (that do not manage to keep me completely awake while watching this turkey and anyway. ). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"unfortunately the only spoiler in this review is that there nothing to spoil about that movie. even if b. mattei had never done any master piece he use to do his job with a bit of humor and craziness that made him a fun eurotrash director. but for the last 10 years he seemed to have lost it. this film is just empty and nothing at all to wake us up from the deep sleep you sink into after the first 10 min. no sex and no blood(it suppose to be about snuff. ) and no actors and no dialogs and just as bad as an 90t. v film. it even worse than his last cannibals and zombies epics. so rest in peace bruno and you will stay in our minds forever anyway and thanks to such unforgettable gems as representzombi 3 and robowar and rats and laltro inferno and virus and cruel jaws and few others. so except if you want to see b mattei possessed by jess franco spirit new film and pass on this one. but if you do not know this nice artisan career track down his old films and have fun. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 cheap exploitation film about a mothers search for her daughter who has been kidnapped by people who make snuff porno films. the trail leads the mother all over europe as she searches for her child and we in the audience struggle to stay asleep. this is one of the countless soft core sleaze films that are made for people who want the excitement of porno with out the stigma or danger of it showing up on their credit card bill. personally i would rather have the stigma since those films tend to be more interesting and honest about what were seeing. this is suppose to be a sexy thriller but its not. mostly its people talking about things followed by lots of walking from place to place and lead to lead. periodically through out the film various people get undressed and everything has more than a touch of s and m to the proceedings. the violence and fetish material is of the sort to provoke laughter rather than horror or even excitement and its all so incredibly fake. worse there is not even enough nudity to keep it interesting. (basically par for the course for many of these films)you will forgive my lack of details but it simply is a dull boring film that i stayed with to the end hoping for something remotely prurient to occur and but there was nothing. the most interesting thing was the blonde haired villainess with the huge over bite and nose the size of a buick. i watched her with morbid fascination wondering what she had looked like as a young girl and wondering whether she had had plastic surgery and not the type of things you should be thinking about in a gripping thriller. avoid. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 i say and there are b grade movies and there are b grade movies and this definitely falls into the latter. however since it obvious that even the makers of the film know that it not a credible movie (take a look at the closing credits) it can be forgiven. the plot is basically a convicted psycho killer is killed. he accidentally has his genetic material mixed up with some experimental acid that get combined and then lost in the snow. the killer now takes on the form of a snowman if you can believe that. the snowman and jack frost and is after the country town sherif who put him behind bars. in doing so and jack frost ends up killing half the town. this movie lacks any real scares and the effects alone remind me of the b grade movies of the 50 . this alone makes it worth watching for a laugh. a movie to pass the time away. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 may not be a critic and but here is what i think of this movie. well just watched the movie on cinemax and first of all i just have to say how much i hate the storyline i mean come on what does a snowman scare besides little kids and secondly it is pretty gory but i bet since the movie is so low budget they probably used ketchup so my critical vote is bomb. nice try and the sequel will suck twice as much. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"and this movie has crossed it. i have never seen such a terrible movie in my life. i mean and a kid head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled. a snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible. this was a pitiful excuse for a 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:
"it not just the plot alone that makes this movie an instant turn off for bored audiences. it the terrible direction with a horrible script and mistakes left and right that makes this too agonizing to watch. i am sorry but i do not see the fun in this. just the thrill of pointing the many mistakes and stupid one liners. well i am wondering how dumb the directors think of their producing company when this movie was first introduced. probably as dumb as that sheriff who dove into the pickup truck full of antifreeze with a gaping bloody wound. oops. did i forget to mention this sheriff not only a poor actor but also can shrug off an impalement with a load of antifreeze drenching the exposed flesh. i guess he kind of forgot when he won a not so thrilling victory over the snowman. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"you know what kind of movie youre getting into when the serial killer main character is being transported to the electric chair (in what seems to be a bakery truck) and only to have the prison vehicle collide with (and i am not making this up) a genetic engineering tanker truck. the goo which spurts forth melts him and and fuses his dna with the snow and creating our protagonist and the killer snowman. my favorite portion of the movie and however and is an over the shoulder shot of the snowman thrashing some poor schmuck and in which his hands look suspiciously like a couple of white oven potholder gloves. mmmmm and schlock. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 1998 michael keaton kiddie comedy of the same title was roundly condemned for it and um and shoddy special effects and but compared to what screaming mad george cooked up for this horror comedy theyre positively mind boggling. the killer snowman seems to be made out of styrofoam and his arms look like oversized oven mitts. which they probably were. the cast lays it on thick in this parody of dozens of other (much worse) movies and paul keith as the town doctor is particularly memorable in a small but hilarious role. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"boy this movie had me fooled. i honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever and boy i got the cold shoulder that time. this movie was and and i am truthful and pretty damn good. it was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch and i almost laughed at how bad it was and but to some extent i enjoyed it. the killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and christmas and which made things more intriguing. the pov camera angles were awesome. the movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. he is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. these were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. he than takes his revenge and as the snowman and on the police officer who convicted him. this movie had such bad acting and with the exception of christopher allport and that is was funny. i will say that i am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror and but in fact a dark sitcom. they had a great story with a good plot but it wasn not executed right. all in all i like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. but this movie is way better and darker than the sequel. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 serial killer dies in a snowstorm and gets mutated into frosty the snowman evil twin. then goes on a killing spree. interesting plot. sounds scary. and it is scary. if youre five years old. otherwise and it kind of cheesy. i saw it on cable and i am glad i do not pay money to see it. it has all the charm and style of a low budget movie which may become a cult film. i am sure it has a loyal fan base somewhere. i am just not in it. even though i do not like the movie as a whole and there were some scenes i found amusing. such as the bathtub scene and the post explosion scene with the picasso reference. it was also enjoyable to watch the many ways the heroes try to kill jack and he just doesn not seem to want to die. in short and jack frost is a good low budget b movie comedy and but a bad low budget b movie horror. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"jack frost and no kids it not the warm hearted family movie about a dad who comes back from the dead in the form of a snow man. it about a sadistic killer named jack frost who is sprayed with some acid fluid and is morphed into a killer snow man. i happened to catch a copy of this movie so i could have a nice sit back and laugh at it. a killer snow man. ha and sounds like the perfect comedy or horror movie. well i was wrong and very wrong. jack frost is about a killer who is being transported via truck to jail so he could fry in the chair at midnight. but it a snowy night and it collides with a government tanker carrying a new dna fluid. jack escapes only to be burnt to death by the acid and morphs into a killer snowman. he returns to the small town of snowmonton where he was caught by a small time sheriff. here he is ready to kill again and now as a snow man with cooler powers. he can condense into water and shoot out ice cycles as spears and and grow killer fangs. the only question is and who can stop frost. this movie is below the typical b movie line. the movies begins cheesy but as soon as jack is burned by the acid and it quickly drops below the cheese line and goes flat. the acting for one is appalling. here we have a whole cast of unheard of actors who either can not act and can act but has a pointless character and or is just here for a few extra bucks. the only good actor is scott macdonald who plays jack. he looks like a young richard kiel combined with frankenstein. sadly his appearance is only reduced to three minutes and all we ever see of him is his new snow man form and his wise cracking voice. plus his wisecracks are anything but funny. groaning and stupid and and bad. the plot is horrible. throughout history there have been numerous murderers. a killer in a hockey mask and a killer with a razer glove and a chainsaw wielding moron and a rapid st. bernard and but now we stoop to a tacky killer snow man. oh come on. and the way the characters are introduced are terrible. for one i really wanted jack to kill the sheriffs son and i mean giving his dad oats with antifreeze in them so they would not freeze. all the characters are dumb and pointless and the deaths are to cartoony. one woman in strangled with christmas lights and has her head smashed into a decoration box and a girl is humped to death in the shower (where is the carrot in that scene eh. ). and to top of this horrible movie is the special effects. the first big special effect we have is jack dna mixing in with snow and boy is it terrible. i mean it looks like a 60 fashion of art design and pu. jack looks fake as well. he looks like a person covered with rubber snow man skin. all the blood and gore is cheesy and the film never takes off with greatness but instead stoops to low levels. jack frost is one of the worst slasher movies ever made. i thought it would be a riot but no. it doesn not try to be funny and it actually tries to be scary. jack frost gets negative and it at least made me laugh from it awfulness. don not even bother with this piece of trash. jack frost equals d plus . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i am so happy and surprised that there is so much interest in this movie. jack frost was my introduction into the films produced and distributed by a pix entertainment and and without exception and everything this company deals with is pure crap. first and and this is very important and never ever watch this movie sober. why would you. unlike many other entertaingly bad movies and this one i feel was made intentionally bad. i just can not get over how fake the snowman is and which is why its always shown only briefly and the way it moves is the best. this movie is waaaaaaaaaaay better than the michael keaton piece of crap and becuz that was made too be a good movie and and that version is as bad as this. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this is the crappiest film i have ever seen but in all fairness it watchable and rather funny. i do not think the film makers intended it to be your typical hollywood blockbuster quality. it just a stupid film about a serial killer who gets doused in a load of toxic waste causing a reaction with him and the snow (as it the middle of winter). he then turns into a killer snowman which is enough to to make you laugh on it own. this film is really stupid but it funny. the killings are hilarious. i do not advise you to go and buy it (like i did the cover looked good. )but if it happens to be on tv one night and youre up for a laugh then stick it on. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie may be the worst movie i have ever seen. basically it is right above leprachaun 5 and the only difference is that it missing ice t. the scene where he does the chick with the carrott. priceless. oh yeah they made a second one and genius. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 and no correction and this thing and this abysmal abomination from the burning pits of hell should have been killed before it even left the writer head. i could not possibly come up with enough adjectives to describe this movie. but let try anyway. horrible and bad and nauseating and tasteless and crap and vomit inducing and gut wrenchingly bad and hideous and nasty and putrid and there just aren not enough words in the english language. the plot involves a serial killer who becomes a snow man. don not ask how and not important. the killer snowman runs about killing people. how and you may ask and can a snowman kill someone. in tasteless ways that make you want to remove your eyes if only so you do not have to endure that styrofoam snowman anymore. in ways that make you want to fill your ears with hot wax so you do not have to endure his snow puns anymore. don not watch this movie. destroy it on sight. for the sake of your very soul do not watch 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:
"whoever made this movie must have done it as a joke. i mean and this was the stupidest movie i think i have ever seen. a killer snowman terrorizes a small town. give me a break. love it when he takes off driving the cop car. more like a comedy than a horror movie. if you want a laugh and rent this. if you truly want a horror movie and stay the hell away from 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:
"a friend and clearly with no taste or class and suggested i take a look at the work of ron atkins. if this is representative of his oeuvre and i never want to see anything else by him. it is amateurish and self indulgent and criminally shoddy and self indulgent rubbish. the whore mangler of the title is an angry low budget filmmaker who murders a bunch of hookers. there is a little nudity and some erections and but no single element could possibly save this from the hangman noose. the lighting is appalling and the dialog is puerile and mostly shouted and and the direction is clueless. i saw a doco on american exploitation filmmakers during the recent fangoria convention. atkins was one of those featured. he spoke like there was something important about his work and but after a viewing of this and i see nothing of any import whatsoever. there is no style and either and and the horrible video effects (like solarization) only enhance the amateurishness. not even so bad it fun. avoid. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"director ron atkins is certifiably insane. this ultra low budget film chronicles a few days in the life of one harry russo (john giancaspro and who also co wrote) and a nut job who receives a rubberneck doll from his bitch girlfriend. he starts to take orders from the doll to take massive amounts of drugs and rape and kill and not always in that order. what starts off as being a balls to the wall exploitation film and well stays like that and but it gets very repetitive very fast. i am leaning more toward the certifiably insane. it is hard to forget once seen though. kinda like if tom green ever did a horror film. my grade representf eye candy represent laurie farwell gets fully nude while jasmin putnam shows tits and bush anti eye candy represent seeing john completely naked repeatedly. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 interested to see the move thinking that it might be a diamond in the rough and but the only thing i found was bad writing and horrible directing (the shot sequences do not flow) even though the director might say that that is what he is going for and it looks very uninspired and immature) the editing could have been done by anyone with 2 vcrs and the stock was low budget video. i would say that it wasn not even something as simple as mini digital video. there are some simple ways to fix a film with what the director has and like through editing etc. but it is obvious that he just doesn not care. there is as much effort put in to this movie as a ham sandwich. it could be made better and but that would mean extra work. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"there are bad movies and then there are the movies that are so bad and that they become almost art. this is one of those films. my partner and i are still both kind of shell shocked and you know and staring off into space and drooling. you can tell that the people involved (i hope they changed their names to protect themselves) were having a blast and and they definitely weren not shy. i give this one a three out of ten just because of the gratuitous smut and really bad gore effects. i laughed out loud during most of the movie and so i guess you could say that it showed me a good time. beware viewer and the above words in no way construe that this is a good film and because it is not. all i can say in my defense and is that it was impossible to pass up a movie with such a great title. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"schizophreniac represent the whore mangler is another example of what happens when you get a bunch of untalented people together to make an extreme horror film. any sort of acting and production and storyline and fx and etc. go out the window in an effort to create shock value. now do not get me wrong i consider myself a connoisseur of shock films and and the sleazier or gorier or nastier the better but it still nice to see some sort of talent from someone involved in the film. schizophreniac chronicles the life of harry russo a drug addicted freak show who takes orders to kill from his ventriloquist dummy and rubberneck. he goes on a few sprees killing hookers and other random people and and screaming about how much he hates hoo uhs (that whores for those of you that do not speak new york ese. ) and how he wants to rape them in the ass. there are a few weak necrophilia scenes and very little gore and and some nudity to mix things up a bit but nothing that you haven not seen in a better film. the only redeeming thing that i can find in this retarded film are the often (unintentionally. ) hilarious screaming fits from our main man and harry. he goes on and on and on about wanting to kill everyone and do them in the ass and and it really becomes quite comical after a while. in fact and i am almost tempted to believe that there supposed to be some sort of homo erotic undertone to this film and with all the ass talk and constant shots of harry running around with his dong hangin out. in all honesty and that joker is nekkid more in this film then the few chicks that show some t and a (and some full frontal and for good measure). schizophreniac is mildly amusing as a 1 time watch and but i can really only recommend this to those that want to be able to say that they watched a film called schizophreniac represent the whore mangler. to be honest the title and by far is the best thing about this trash. a generous 3. 5/10. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"well and i like to be honest with all the audiences that i bought it because of kira sex scenes and but unfortunately i did not see much of them. all sex scenes were short and done in haphazard manner along with all the weird and corny background music just like all other b movies it just doesn not look much like two people having sex. there is a tiny bit of plot toward the end kira new lover is a killer. whoa. how shocking. why do not we nominate this movie for oscar award. i can not imagine how bad the movie would look like if it were r rated (mine is imported from uk and rated 18). conclusion. put it down and walk away and so yon would not end up with being a moron like me. score represent 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:
"losing control is another offering in the erotic thriller genre which could be considered as the pulp fiction of the film world. usually and they involve a roundabout route to murderous intent and interspersed with copious disrobing. this is not a complaint and especially when it is done by the stunningly beautiful women who invariably inhabit this make believe world. kim ward (kira reed) is suffering a bout of writer block. just by chance and (or is it. ) she meets a man (doug jeffery) who engages with her in ever more risky sexual encounters. the man refuses to divulge any information about himself and yet kim steadfastly refuses to stop the affair. her agent and alexa (anneliza scott) thinks it will do wonders for her book sales. as in most films of this type and the denouement comes near the end but some things do not add up. i have seen enough of this kind of film to think and no change there and then but i like them. they are so undemanding. performances of the cast vary. doug jeffery carries the film as the psycho or sociopath you do not want to cross. kira reed looks good but fails to convince as the woman in peril. clay greenbush as the pi did not convince either. finally and a note of caution about the dvd under review. both the cover and the disc state r rated and running time as 93 minutes but the run time is less than 86 minutes. this probably explains why the sex scenes appear truncated and why jennifer ludlow performance is cut short just as she getting started. 4 stars. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"personally i think this show looks pretty cheaply made. some of the actors are terrible. they over do it and seem fake. i can always tell how it going to end within the first 10 minutes or less of watching because they make it so transparently clear. it not very well written either. i love to watch it to laugh at it. you know the saying it so bad that it good. well and that saying applies to this show. i also like to watch just to see if i am right when i guess how it all going to end. so far i have been right every time. it like a little game that i play. it nice when you are bored and you feel like laughing at something. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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. simply awful. i was a fan of the original movie and and begrudgingly sat through part 2 and 3 was and improvement. 4 and 5 and freddy dead were pretty bad. but nothing is as bad as freddy nightmares. freddy acts as a rod serlingesq host of this anthology series. i can accept how freddy became one punchline after another and but at least in the movies the appeal of freddy carried the movies and but here these were so poorly made and they looked like high school productions of a horror series. the poor actors and if you really want to call yourself that after doing this show were obviously exactly what they paid for. i am nearly certain this was a stopping point for two types of actors. ones just starting on the hollywood ladder and brand new willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week and or seasoned actors on their way down the hollywood ladder willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week. i half expected dana plato to guest star and but she was already dead by the time this was in production. to paraphrase nancy line in the original elm st and what ever you do try not to fall asleep watching this. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this is my first movie review on imdb. i was forced to register after watching this movie. i cannot in good conscience allow this movie to be unreviewed by me. the people must be warned. first of all and my rating is represent 0 (as in zero)i love jack black and ben stiller and rachel weis and and christopher walken and and yet and i hated this movie. there is a plot and but who cares when there no script. the dialogue is unreal and plain boring and the situations are contrived and the flow of events is slow and somewhat arbitrary and the characters are unsympathetic and uninteresting and and the story and although based on a good premise and is stupid. this movie is a piece of poo. never mind wasting money on this movie and it not even worth your time spent watching it. please do not see it. i beg of you. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this could be looked at in many different ways. this movie sucks and its good or its just plain weird. the third one probably explains this movie best. it has strange themes and just has a strange plot. so who else but christopher walken would play in this no matter how bad and average or even how good it might be. the acting was what you would expect especially out of ben stiller. jack black i have always liked so you know what you will get out of him but this is not bad. christopher walken is always off the wall. he is always enjoyable to watch no matter how bad the movie is. comedy wise it is somewhat funny. this of course meaning that it does have its moments (though very few) but can get a little over top here and there which makes me feel like the movie is just desperate for laughs but of course not in a good way. the directing was average as well. barry levinson is a slightly overrated director and really did not do a good job here. this movie seemed that it had a lot more potential and he did not do much to reach it. just very average and did not seem like a lot of effort was put into making this film. the writing is the key to a good comedy. obviously that means the writing here failed. at best it is below average. considering it does have its moments it was not too horrible. that is never a good thing to say about a movie though. if not for christopher walken and it stupid ridiculous ending i would have given it a lower rating. he is always quite a character in his movies. stil this is just a whacked out strange movie with strange characters that really do not go anywhere. not completely horrible but i would not really recommend it though because it is a very forgettable movie. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this has to be the most brutally unfunny comedy i have ever seen in my life. ben stiller and jack black and and christopher walken as a crazed homeless man cant make me laugh. something got to be wrong with this picture. this is the only movie i have ever felt like walking out of. i used free passes and and still felt like i wanted my money back. i can wholeheartedly say that the only movie i have ever seen worse than this one was house of the dead. the. only. worse. movie. i laughed very slightly at the merry go round scene and and that it. spending 2 hours in something billed as a comedy should get you more than one laugh and right. i do not know and i guess the filmmakers thought that flan was a funny word and or something. and the other running joke really is beating a dead horse literally. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 couldn not wait to put this movie in my dvd player when i rented it. then after i started it and i couldn not wait to get it out of my dvd player. actually i watched all of the movie. my wife and i kept waiting and waiting for something funny to happen and but nothing funny ever does. the box read like the it would be really funny. the premise of the movie sound good. ben stiller is funny. jack black is funny. how could this movie miss. well. it does miss. this is the unfunniest comedy i have ever watched. nobody i have talked with thought it was even slightly funny. it is just a really lame movie. trust me. avoide it. avoide 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:
"envy is bad for a number of reasons. yes and there are unlikeable characters. that not the problem. it is that they are unlikeable and we do not care for them at all. the war of the roses featured unlikeable characters but due to proper introductions we grew to at least find ourselves interested in their fate and whereas in envy the introduction is thin and the characters are never believable and and the plot only makes things worse. ben stiller is simply repulsive in his role and i am a fan of his work most of the time. stiller campaigned to have this released straight to video and now i can see why. the movie proposes that he best friends with jack black and but from the first five minutes we are given footage that seems to indicate stiller hates black. i thought this would develop into some sort of one sided relationship (a la the cable guy) but it never does and instead stiller insists he his best friend and i felt confused as he seemed to treat black like and well and poo. the movie plot is ridiculous but it doesn not matter and because it supposed to be an exaggerated morality tale. unfortunately the message is lost in the mess. walken gives a good performance but black is off key and annoying (and i usually find him very funny). no and it not a horrible film but i still can not believe barry levinson (rain man and sleepers) is responsible for this it not one of the worst films of all time but it could certainly be a whole lot better. i wish va poo rize did exist so we could make this film disappear forever. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 admit to liking a lot of the so called frat pack movies. no matter how bad they are and i can find something to like about ben stiller or owen wilson or vince vaughn or will ferrell or jack black. but envy just left me about as cold as the white horse that ben disposed of. this time and it ben and jack black as a couple of nutty neighbors and one of whom (black) discovers a aerosol spray to make animal poop disappear and becomes incredibly wealthy while the other (stiller) writhes in envy. that supposedly the plot and but then it veers off in other directions that do not really make much sense. i guess the vapoorize thing is sort of amusing at first. the problem is and they try to sustain the gag for the whole picture (black has a license plate that reads caca king) and it gets fairly tiresome. but even ben and jack are used poorly while the energy level for both of their performances seems significantly dialed down. the two best performances by far are rachel weisz and chris walken. walken neo hippie dippie guy is so offbeat and so well modulated a performance that it really never suggests any of walken other familiar nutcase characters. it completely unique and yet comes across as unmistakably walken. and weisz is about the best actress in the business that nobody knows about. even with limited screen time and she still dominates every scene she in. the whole crux of the so called drama is that ben and in a jealous drunken stupor and accidentally shoots jack prize white stallion and and then goes to ridiculous lengths to cover it up and fearing his best friend will find out and cut him dead. but the plot twist isn not believable because there nothing about jack character to indicate that he would do such a thing. he plays such a sweet guy that it renders the whole excruciating horse chase null and void. you discount it completely. it all filler. and what the point of the out of control merry go round and except that barry levinson wants us to know that he seen strangers on a train. the screenplay is painfully bad and the acting of the two leads poorly directed. someone with levinson track record should know better. maybe someone will invent something to make this film disappear. oh and wait and they already have. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"how can barry levinson possibly assemble white hot comedy talents ben stiller and jack black and the gorgeous rachel weisz and old pro christopher walken and still deliver such a humourless stinker. stiller and black are friends until the latter invents a spray to make dog mess vanish and becomes a conspicuous consuming multi millionaire. the premises is thin but sound enough in the right hands to have been a springboard for some great bitching between the two stars but all concerned overplay every hand and every chance they can. stiller and black are simply not funny for way too much of the time and weisz looks sensational as always but is criminally underused and and with the exception of walken as a batty barfly who urges stiller character to take revenge and it a turgid trudge to the end of this strained farce. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"start with the script. i have seen cartoons with more depth than envy. anytime characters keep repeating what you have already seen and and was not funny the first time and a movie is in deep trouble and which envy certainly is. a movie that relies on one joke had better have somewhere to go with it. here we have a film that goes absolutely nowhere. christopher walken especially would like to forget this bomb and because his character is so weak. ben stiller has been in some pretty good black comedies and flirting with disaster and and duplex and immediately come to mind. be certain that envy is not a black comedy. there are no double meanings and just total nonsense. envy deserves it low rating and because like it subject matter and it stinks. 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:
"i can not say much about this film. i think it speaks for itself (as do the current ratings on here). i rented this about two years ago and i totally regretted it. i even or tried or to like it by watching it twice and but i just couldn not. i can safely say that i have absolutely no desire to see this waste of time ever and ever again. and i am not one to trash a movie and but i truly believe this was awful. it wasn not even funny in the slightest. the only bits i enjoyed were the few scenes with christopher walken in them. i think this film ruined both jack black and ben stiller for me. all i can think of when i see one of their films now a days is this terrible movie and and it reminds me not to waste my money. amy poehler is so very annoying and too. overall and well and i think you get my point. the stars are for walken and by the 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:
"please and someone stop ben stiller from acting in any movie. write the studios and hell and write your local congressman even. i have gotten more laughs going to a funeral then i have watching any stiller flick. jack black tries to make something about a comedy about disappearing dog crap and and christopher walken and perhaps on of the greatest actors of his generation and simply looks embarrassed to be there. stiller is his unfunny self and but now even with someone to bail him out and proves that he is way overrated as a comic. it no wonder why this movie tanked badly and and was available of the dollar movie theaters after only a handful of weeks. i warn you and and you must warn your friends and do not watch this flick and it is just awful and worst then gothika (personally and i would never thought i would say that) and worst the plan 9 and worst the ishtar and worst then the golden child. please hollywood and quit allowing ben stiller in your movies and he not funny and he a god awful actor and and he bringing others down with him. the following film was ranked 1 because there are no negative scores allowed and so while the board says one and i will give it a zero. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"it seems that the people behind envy realised that recent comedies especially ones involving ben stiller and to a lesser degree jack black have been situation spoofs and which have steadily declined in originality and generally laughs. i found the sheer absurdity of zoolander utterly hilarious when it was released and starsky and hutch was also enjoyable and and then dodgeball kept the laughs going for a lot of people and although personally i was a bit tired of the over the top characters especially when the scenario wasn not quite so funny (perhaps the comedy of a dodgeball tournament doesn not quite translate to australia and where it rarely played). so in an attempt to do something a little more original and envy moves away from an absurd scenario and instead revolves around the absurd creation of jack black character (i would not spoil what it is for those who intend to see the movie). the problem is that the movie seems to drag and i am not a big enough movie buff to be able to think of examples and but it seems like this set up has been done a thousand times before and very rarely successfully. so instead of a nice and crisp and enjoyable and fresh comedy and you get a film that seems to just go through the motions. sure the motions can be quite amusing and and theyre centred on an idea that is quirky enough to provide a few laughs especially with jack black playing the excited and amusing and though a bit 2d and creator. ben stiller on the other hand seems a bit lost and he asked to play a fuller role than the ridiculous characters of his zoolander breed of movies and but he struggles as a family man and whether his fault or the scripts and there isn not enough depth to the character and the result is a movie of ben stiller doing those typical mannerisms and generally becoming tedious. the performance doesn not leave an imprint on the viewer (he just ben stiller and jack black manages to actually portray a character though not a challenging one). the last annoying element of the movie is christopher walken role as the j man and which is about as typical and two dimensional as characters come and and naturally he becomes monotonous and frustrating very quickly. it really not as unbearable as some people would have you think and it watchable and especially if youre in the right mood (feeling silly would be a good prerequisite for seeing this film). hire it on a movie night with friends and watch it after you have watched a scary film and feel like something light hopefully you will also be somewhat tipsy by then too. in that scenario i can imagine it would be quite enjoyable and but generally it provides too few laughs to carry itself and most of the time just drags along. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 usually like comedy movies. i really enjoy them. but i do not really get the point of envy. i mean and it has a dull content or topic and and it not really funny. although the acting is generally good and it not enough for the movie to get at least a bit interesting. stiller and black do not show all their talent in this movie. so and if youre about to rent a comedy and i suggest you definitely do not go for this one. unless you want to get bored and and i can see i am not the only one with this opinion and because even jack black apologized for it (take a look at trivia). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 movie i have ever seen. i am not kidding. the next time it comes on and i will just continually run my head into a wall. it would me more enjoyable to sit in an emergency room trying to explain to a doctor why my brain is swollen than attempting to make it through this movie again. i hope that black and stiller never work together on a project this bad again. they are both good comedians and so i was shocked this was so awkward. if they had to do it all over again and i am pretty sure that they would decide to not do it. the folks that fronted the money and must have lost a ton. not really because the special effects (all 2 of them) were terrible. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"stupid. stupid. stupid. i can not stand ben stiller anymore. how this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. i can not understand how this happens if i performed at work the way he acts in a movie i would get fired and i own the company. i would have to fire myself. god. this movie was just a plain and steaming and stinking pile of poo and that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. something else i have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. what is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie. i will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i watched envy two nights ago and on dvd and at a friends house. the premise of this film is quite promising and jack black and ben stiller in a comedy with a lot of potential and but it completely fails to deliver. i watched it with about five friends and no one laughed for the entire film. the jokes (which are few and far between) are not funny in any way. the story line is crap and and they never answer the question. where does the sht go. of course the answer to that is no one cares. this film lacks any sort of comedy value and and as a few other users have said the only thing that makes it even almost worth watching is christopher walken as the j man. none of the characters are developed and the plots so thin it nearly transparent and is that song throughout the film supposed to be 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:
"envy stars some of the best. jack black and ben stiller and amy poehler and and the great christopher walken. with such a cast and one can only expect the best. however and with envy and no one could save this disaster. tim dingman (stiller) and nick vanderpark (black) are best friends and co workers at a sandpaper factory. both are making a decent living and but because tim has a better performance at work and he able to afford more than his buddy nick. nick is a dreamer who always coming up with new ideas for inventions. one day and nick comes up with the idea for a spray can that makes dog poop disappear (yes and i am serious). falling in love with the idea and nick decides to really invent this product. he makes an offer to tim to invest in his idea and share the profits 50/50. tim refuses thinking the idea will never work. nick invention and titled va poo rize (again and i am serious) and ends up making millions. he enjoys spending his money on things like a much larger house and a horse and a personal trainer and and fancy deserts. tim starts feeling envy for nick. hence the name of the movie. the concept isn not bad and but it still turns out awful. this movie contains some of the worst dialog and very poor performances from all the cast. then again and as i mentioned earlier and none of them could save this mess. not even the great christoper walken and playing a homeless character named j man and made this movie funny. the movie is bad from the start and only continues to get worse. i recommend this movie if represent you like crap (no pun intended) you want to see jack black in a white tuxi say and avoid this movie at all costs and but avoid especially if represent youre offended by bathroom humor you love animals. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 last night and even after a couple of beers the only giggle this movie got out of me was when i realized that i was actually watching it. in a word and it is unfunny. unfunny. i totally believe the trivia tidbit about jack black apologizing for making this garbage. i can not believe that barry levinson do not just toss this script when he read the first page. moreover and i can not believe that i watched more than ten minutes of it. i gave it negative because i love to see christopher walken make terrible movies for the paycheck. also and the horse corky and by merely existing as a character in this movie and is actually quite ridiculous. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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. i just couldn not laugh at it. i had an open mind. i do not want to be a tight @ss about it. but i seriously just couldn not laugh at this film. it was just not funny to me. some parts it seemed like ben stiller and jack black tried too hard. just because you put two very funny men together doesn not mean that this is going to be an excellent comedy. some movies just shouldn not be made. this is one of them. because it does a lot of old jokes and the acting was just stupid. i know and i know it a comedy. sort of at least. but i was just not impressed. i am sorry and but i cannot give this anything lower than a two. and that all i am giving. 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 do not envy barry levinson and rachel weisz and ben stiller or jack black for doing this film. it and in one word and boring. maybe the fact that is too predictable and the more than exploited ben stiller loser role or the not at all funny scenes make this film just something to forget. even christopher walken appearance finishes in a pathetic way. i was very disappointed. i love ben stiller acting. i loved it in most of his films and the last one i saw before this was duplex with drew barrymore and was not that bad. about jack black. well and apart from high fidelity i have never seen him doing something good. what about school of rock. ooops and frightening. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"jack black character and tim dingman the dreamer in envy and finds wealth and success in the idea of a aerosol spray vapoorize that when sprayed on doggie dung and makes the poo disappear into thin air. for a moment i was hoping that vapoorize was a real product so that i could spray it on this stinker of a movie and make it disappear into thin air as well. although envy is not the worst movie that i have seen in the past 12 months (that honor goes to the cat in the hat) and it does get the honor of a close second. not funny and not sad and not anything. a real stinkeroo. a 0. 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:
"greetings again from the darkness. what ever happened to the great barry levinson. he directed two of my all time favorites in avalon and diner. he had some fine movies as well (rainman) and but always provided something of interest . until now. i believe the worst thing you can ever say about a comedy is that it is boring. envy is the definition of boring. never of big fan of pure slap stick (dumb and dumber) and i was just stunned at how god awful this movie is. there are maybe 2 chuckles in the whole thing if you can pay attention that long. the best part of the film is the running gag of the title song by a redbone sound alike. if the film had been written as well as the song and it would have been tolerable. rachel weisz is a wonderful actress and i realize they all want to do comedy (even julianne moore) and but the real world exposes one weaknesses. snl cast member amy poehler is her usual over the top in her role as trailer park trash turned princess. the disaster of the film is jack black and ben stiller. the first work commute together flashes some promise and but after that their chemistry disappears due to the poor script. this script is like most of jack black character ideas not a bad thought and but no hope for success. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"working with one of the best shakespeare sources and this film manages to be creditable to it source and whilst still appealing to a wider audience. branagh steals the film from under fishburne nose and and there a talented cast on good 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:
"such is the dilemma(above) that debbie must face at the close of this sam sherman production naughty stewardesses. debbie has just hit town and become a stewardess and slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50 but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago) and shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met and and then is the central element to a kidnapping or extortion plot. through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul searching and what in heaven name will debbie do. well and i cannot give it away completely but do not expect any real epiphany here. let face it. naughty stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two thirds through) represent a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70 way film. there is no grand art here. the movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. by todays standards and the film is pretty tame. what this film does do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. c amon and anyone here believing that little diatribe by debbie while on the beach contemplating life. she would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. and what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand. it do not make sense to me so how on earth did these characters dig it. anyone buying cal as a member of the plo(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography. he would be luck to get work at seven eleven. this is and as another reviewer noted and more of a sam sherman piece then and al adamson piece. you can tell when al is in complete charge. there is virtually no budget and the film doesn not look nearly as polished as this. adamson does a decent job directing this time and i have to give sherman credit to a degree. while this film is bad just for what it was meant to be and it has a certain style to it. i liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. i even liked the music of sparrow. silver heels was a somewhat catchy tune. the movie doesn not look cheap really at all. compare that to any of al horror films. as for the cast and yes and bob livingston is a bit old for the lead and but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. i had major problems with robert smedley who was just plain awful in his role. the girls have all got great sets and so what else was required of them huh. naughty stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70 and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. by the way and did i mention it is a pretty bad picture. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 sought out this film for one reason al adamson. he is among the worst directors of all time right up there with ed wood and jr. and ray dennis steckler and the pantheon of awfulness. however and i was a tad disappointed because although the film was indeed bad and it never approached the levels of awfulness of some of his earlier schlocky movies. because of that and this film wasn not particularly fun to watch for us bad movie fans. now i was wary about watching this film and as the title naughty stewardesses makes the film sound like a pornographic film something i do not be reviewing on imdb. however and this film appeared to be this at times particularly the first 10 minutes. but and you could tell that the script underwent many changes and as for much of the film there isn not any titillation at all and towards the end of the movie there is a plot that comes out of no where that is violent and certainly not sexy. the result of all this is total confusion. sadly and none of the many parts are even good. for example and as a porn video and it shows surprisingly little and it incomprehensible why they would put a 71 year old guy in some of the love scenes. sure and for a 71 year old mr. livingston looked pretty good but he was still an old man and no one would want to see him getting it on with young nymphet. then and when the final 20 minutes becomes very violent and as livingston became a rambo like guy. talk about weird and inappropriate. overall and there is little to recommend this sad movie. it not bad enough or sexy enough to care about and the film manages to be rather boring even with such a crazy title like naughty stewardesses. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"connie hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times. that it and folks. the sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not. these 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers and big hair and zapata moustaches etc. ). this one isn not. the script is bad and the acting is bad and the direction is bad and and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad. the title and hinting at a sex comedy and is grossly misleading. i heartily recommend avoiding this one like the plague. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"from the start and you know this is a sam sherman film more than an al adamson film because as the credits roll and a sam sherman production appears in letters as big as the title credit. not only that and mr. sherman co wrote the screenplay and it was his idea to use bob livingstone and a washed up and 69 year old western star of the old hollywood era to be his male lead in a picture that sherman thought would capitalize on the recent success of swinging stewardesses. now why would you want to have a wrinkled old man as your male lead in what is supposed to be a soft core exploitation feature. it defies explanation and but that is sam sherman for you. his obsession with old hollywood colored a lot of his films for independent international pictures and and he and al adamson frequently tried to get has been actors for their films (e. g. j. carrol naish and russ tamblyn and lon chaney jr. and etc. ). but bob livingstone. tell me the drive in demographic knew who this 40 second rater was while it ridiculous. but then again and naughty stewardesses was a successful picture for them and so we can not just write this off as a sherman fiasco. still and by any aesthetic standard and it an incoherent mess. al adamson wanted out of this picture and and it is easy to see why. first off and it has no genre focus at all and drifts around from super soft core (tits and ass or simulated sex only) to a kidnapping thriller (shades of steckler rat pfink and boo boo. ) in between and we get subjected to painfully boring sequences of the stewardesses traipsing around vegas to the hackneyed music of sparrow and or richard smedley and connie hoffmann on a photo shoot in san francisco. worst of all and we get bob livingstone as a jack lalanne wannabe in a blue jumpsuit trying to be sexy. gag. (thankfully and his big sex scene with connie hoffmann was deleted and but you can catch him slurping on her titties on the dvd in the special features section. creepy. ) this is a terrible and terrible movie and but i will give it three stars for gary graver photography and out of sympathy to connie hoffmann for having to make it with wrinkles livingstone. naughty stewardesses is for al adamson completists and or or scholars of exploitation film as sam sherman commentary offers vital inside info. all others and beware. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 truly brilliant. it ducks through banality to crap at such speed you do not even see good sense and common decency to mankind go whizzing past. but it doesn not stop there. this movie hits the bottom of the barrel so hard it bounces back to the point of ludicrous comedy represent behold as kor the beergutted conan wannabe with the over abundance of neck hair struts his stuff swinging his sword like there no tomorrow (and the way he swung it and i really am amazed there was a tomorrow for him and or at least and for his beer gut). don not miss this movie and it a fantastic romp through idiocy and and sheer bloody mindedness. and once you have finished watching this one and dry the tears of joy (or tears of frustration at such an inept attempt at storytelling) from your eyes because some stupid f00l gave these people another $5 to make a sequel. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 we have here is a downright brilliant piece of early 80 incompetence that will render even the biggest connoisseur of trash cinema completely speechless. wizards of the lost kingdom is a very cheap and cheesy fantasy or sword and sorcery adventure that doesn not have an actual plot but does eagerly and shamelessly borrows elements from other films. writer ed naha and hector olivera (who. ) watched enough similar type of movies to know that they needed a handful of essential characters and but probably figured that all the rest would follow automatically. in order to make a fantasy adventure you need represent one super evil villain (preferably with a black cape) and one young hero in training and one lone warrior and one amiable type of furry pet and one wise midget living in the woods (optional) and a whole colorful collection of hideous demons and enslaved dwarfs and and winged gargoyles to serve as filler. the story is phenomenal and so original and with simon the young son of a wizard having to flee from his beloved kingdom after the evil magician shurka takes over the power and killed the king. simon wants to go back and save the people and but therefore he needs his powerful ring which he lost during his escape. simon befriends lone warrior kor (the usually cool dude bo svenson who clearly needed the pay check) and who assists simon during the long and devastating journey full of ordeals and dangerous encounters and magical showdowns. admittedly it doesn not even sound too bad thus far and but that merely just because i excluded all the deliciously inept little details. simon has a best friend named gulfax and for example. gulfax is an albino version of chewbacca and evokes incontrollable chuckles whenever he opens his poodle snout to yelp something incomprehensible. the obstacles during journey back home are hilariously irrelevant to the plot and simply serve as padding footage to cover up the lack of actual content. simon has nightmarish visions inside the tent of a suspicious forest nymph and kor settles an old score with the pig faced nemesis whose sister he refused to marry and there the supposedly horrible uicide cave where you can only sing your way out of. but the absolute most unequally brilliant sequence not just of this film alone but in the history of cinema involves the resurrection of four zombie warriors. simon awakes the legendary courageous warriors and hoping they will assist them in their battle and but the rotting corpses only take a few steps and complain about how tired they are and return back to their graves. that it. so much for the zombie sub plot. best sequence ever. i could go on listing unintentionally hilarious little details for several more paragraphs and but you get the idea. wizards of the lost kingdom is a tremendously messed up so bad it good film. word of advice represent do not watch this joyful piece of junk alone. invite friends and preferably the dope headed types with a wicked sense of humor and and watch it in group. it will be a night to remember
. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"all these reviewers are spot on. i have seen many bad films over the years and believe me and and this beats the lot. this is not just a so bad it good exploiter waste of time and but a genuine and hilarious and movie atrocity. check out the white furry monster type thing. wet yourself laughing at thom christopher spell weaving acting. gape in sheer ae clenching disbelief. at the threadbare sets. this is one of those european co productions. no wonder we have so many wars. i swear and some of the people taking part in wizards of the lost kingdom aren not actually aware they are appearing in a film. fact. i originally watched this movie on htv wales late one night while suffering from concussion and sleep deprivation. i had to track down a copy several weeks later to make sure it was really this awful. it is. worse even than lee majors in the norseman and more laughable than all of john derek films and this is and truly and the citizen kane of trash. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"if somebody wants to make a really and really bad movie and wizards of the lost kingdom really sets a yardstick by which to measure the depth of badness. start with the pseudo chewbacca that follows around the main character . some poor schmuck in a baggy white furry costume that looks as if it was stitched together from discarded pieces of carpeting. work your way slowly and painfully and through more not so special effects that thoroughly deny the viewer from suspension of disbelief. add a garden gnome (just for the heck of it). on second thought and skip this movie entirely and find something else to do for an hour and a half. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"go immediately and rent this movie. it will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. no one will have touched it in years. it may even be a $. 50 special. it worth ten bucks and i swear. buy it. there aren not very many films than can compare with this the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. yes and i gave it a 1 and but it really deserves much lower. 1 10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if 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.