prompt
stringlengths 497
14.4k
| chosen
int64 0
1
| rejected
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"boy what a dud this mess was. but it only lasts an hour and i only paid a buck for it so i will live. unlike the entire cast of this 1933 clunker who are all dust by now. so anyway a small village starts having bodies turning up that have been drained of all their blood. the local yokels start talking about vampires and of course and and a little more loudly after each body is found. the town sheriff or constable or whatever he is and played by awesome actor melvyn douglas and tries to tell them otherwise. when he mentions the fact that the dead have one large hole on each side of the neck and instead of two holes close together and the locals simply then say it a giant vampire bat. the constable insists that vampires do not exist and it must be a human culprit doing the killings. but melvyn doesn not seem too bothered either way. he spends most of his time trying to get into the pantaloons of his sweetie and played by faye wray. also in this mix is the town simpleton and played by dwight frye and who always seemed to have played the same role in every movie he did. he further freaks out the townspeople by catching bats and drinking his own blood. lionel atwill plays the town doctor who seemingly is trying to help the constable solve the crimes. and boy does he ever stink as an actor. atwill is as close to cardboard in this role as he could get. and lionel barrymore is also in this thing. lots of big names to be such a pile of guano. other than the terrible mis title this movie has and the alternate name and the blood sucker is much better and this movie is also dull and plodding and just silly. for me the high point of the movie is watching frye and he nails the freaky town weirdo but other than him this movie do not offer much. and then when you find out the reason for the strange deaths and see the special effect thing that required all this blood you will really be let down. bela lugosi did a lot of awful pictures but at least he was fun and interesting to watch. think of this movie as a really bad lugosi clunker without lugosi and you will get a feel for how miserably bad this mess was. if you can not make a good 1930 horror film at least put lugosi in it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the vampire bat is set in the small german village of klineschloss where gustave schoen (lionel belmore) the burgermeister is holding a meeting with inspector karl brettschneider (melvyn douglas) from the local constabulary about all the recent murders and six victims have been discovered in as many weeks all drained of blood and bearing the same two puncture wounds on their necks. brettschneider doesn not have a single clue but the superstitious elders of the village believe the deaths to be the work of a vampire. brettschneider isn not convinced but the scared villagers keep telling tales of seeing a large bat and meanwhile the latest victim martha mueller (rita carlyle) has been found. brettschneider comes under increasing pressure to solve the murders but can he really believe that a giant vampire bat is responsible and if it is how he going to stop it. directed by frank r. strayer the vampire bat was a cheapie from majestic pictures to cash in on the success of it two stars atwill and wray and their success in the previous years doctor x (1932) and is more of a murder mystery rather than a horror as the exploitative and enticing title may have lead you to believe and quite frankly it rather dull. the script by edward t. lowe jr. takes itself rather seriously and sets up the basic story that something is killing local villagers and that something could possibly be a vampire and then for most of it duration the film focuses on brettschneider and his incompetent investigations which are and not to put too fine a point on it and boring. the vampire bat also has a bit of an identity crisis as it doesn not quite know what it wants to be and the title would suggest a horror film while the majority of it could easily be described as a thriller with the final few minutes descending into silly sci fi. there is no vampire bat and the attempts to fool you are pathetic and all the character are broad stereotypes and you can tell the villain of the piece straight away and as a whole there is nothing particularly exciting or entertaining about the vampire bat. i know it old but that not an excuse as cinema has moved on a lot since 1933 and a bland and flat and dull and boring and misleading film such as the vampire bat just doesn not cut it these days and just look at the original king kong (1933) released the same year and how brilliantly that still holds up today. i do not like it and i doubt many modern film goers would either and it as simple and straight forward as that. director strayer doesn not do anything special but this is a case in point where i can cut the film some slack because of it age and as a whole it pretty much point and shoot and hope for the best stuff. there isn not much in the way of atmosphere or scares although some of the sets which were already existing ones taken from the old dark house (1932) and universal european set on their back lot are nice and add a certain ambiance to things. technically the vampire bat can not compare to anything even remotely modern and for the age of it it alright i suppose but again i draw your attention back to the original king kong. speaking of king kong it star fay wray has a role in this as does horror icon lionel atwill and i will be kind and say the acting is ok. the vampire bat will i imagine fool a lot of people into thinking that it a horror film about vampire bats when in fact it isn not and personally i thought the whole thing was a bit of a bore. it short and it tells it story reasonably enough but i must admit i am not a fan. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 vampire bat is definitely of interest and being one of the early genre setting horror films of the 1930 and but taken in isolation everything is a bit too creaky for any genuine praise. the film is set in a european village sometime in the 19th century and where a series of murders are being attributed to vampirism by the suspicious locals. there is a very similar feel to james whale frankenstein and this is compounded by the introduction of lionel atwill dr niemann character and complete with his misguided ideas for scientific advancement. the vampire theme is arbitrary and only used as a red herring by having suspicion fall on bat loving village simpleton herman (dwight frye) and thus providing the excuse for a torch wielding mob to go on the rampage as if they needed one. this is one of a trio of early horror films in which lional atwill and fay wray co starred (also doctor x and the mystery of the wax museum) and like their other collaborations the film suffers from ill advised comic relief and a tendency to stray from horror to mainstream thriller elements. taken in context though and the vampire bat is still weak and derivative. all we are left with is a poor quality frankenstein imitation and with the vampire elements purely a device to hoodwink dracula fans. but for the title the film would struggle to even be considered as a horror and it is worth noting that director frank strayer was doing the blondie films a few years later. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"class of 61 aspect ratio represent 1. 33 represent1sound format represent stereoin 1861 and class members from the west point academy are torn apart by the outbreak of the civil war. gregory hoblit ok historical drama makes an obvious point virtuous men are rendered blind by conflict though the production seems a little stilted and despite authentic period detail and a cast of talented newcomers (clive owen and christien anholt and josh lucas and andre braugher and laura linney and etc. ) and toplined by dan futterman as a conscientious southerner who takes up arms in defence of slavery and pitting him in direct conflict with his former northern friends. the movie emphasis on such a misguided though sympathetic character is particularly brave and but the drama is otherwise flat and superficial and and hoblit direction is efficient rather than inspired. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 remake of alejandro amenabar abre los ojos and but this time with a living and breathing mask as a lead. for the dubious advantage of an english sound track and we endure tom cruise soulless performance and as usual and with zero depth. yes and the character is identified with his persona and but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. his empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and cruz or diaz. there is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. cruise masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. do see the 1997 original amenabar open your eyes. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 hate hollywood and but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. and and i was hoping vanilla sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original open your eyes exactly the same and or they would make it their own. well and it happened to be a little bit of both and and it sucked. it started out good. i love radiohead. i wish there was more of that. but by the end we are listening to good vibrations by the beach boys. talk about a wide range of suck between. they had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others and but why oh why did they have to blare gv during the climax. it was more annoying than confusing or blatant. especially when it has nothing to do with the plot. at least put some meaning behind the songs. kid a equals primary. whatever. he also did a bang up job with the club scene. that was cool. otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. as if audiences would get the movie. the ones that would get it read subtitles and and the rest would not. its as simple as that. the motivations got all screwed up. i do not comprehend the diaz motivations (hadn not they done the chicken soup night before. ) and some of the others. and i hate kurt russell. stay overboard. tom cruise can not act (especially in these types of movie [i. e. eyes wide shut]). and the elevator. i get it. anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn not screwed it up. negative major disappointment. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this wasn not the major disaster that i was expecting and but that is about as positive as i can be in my description of the movie. i am not sure what was meant to be funny about this movie and but i suppose it all a matter of taste. personally and i do not find it funny to watch morons living their idiotic lives or making fools of themselves on television and but then again and i am not a fan of jerry springer pathetic daytime talk show. i do not get too bored watching this and but i was definitely never enjoying it and either. if youre in the mood to see a bad movie and but one that isn not too painful to sit through and this is a good choice. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 a regular viewer of springer and but i do watch his show in glimpses and i think the show is a fine guilty pleasure and a good way to kill some time. so naturally and i am going to watch this movie expecting to see jerry springer uncensored. first of all and jerry appears in approximately twenty minutes of the film running time. the other hour and twenty minutes is spent building up this pseudo farce about trailer trash and jealousy and incest and deception. jaime pressley (who looks hot as hellll) is a trailer trash slut who sleeps with her stepfather (a very unusual looking and chain smoking and drunken michael dudikoff who finally strays from his action hero persona). the mom finds out about the affair and they get into a fight and they want to take it to the jerry show (that right and no springer). and then we have a parallel story with an african american couple. they take it to the jerry show. the characters collide. blah and blah and freakin blah. trash has rarely been this borrringg. i was wondering why the hell springer has millions of fans and yet none of them checked out his movie. well and now it totally obvious. whether you love him or hate him and you will hate this movie. how can i explain. it a total mess of a motion picture (if that what you call it). it so badly edited and with scenes that just do not connect and and after a period of time the plot virtually disappears and it simply all over the map. just imagine a predictable soap opera transformed into a comic farce. with seldom laughs. my only positive note is a hot girl girl scene. that as risque as it gets. don not get me wrong and the scene pretty risque and but if you look at the overall film comparing it to the material on springer program this disastrous farce seems extremely sanitized. my score represent 3 (out of 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:
"somebody could probably make a great documentary about the jerry springer show and but this fictionalized version merely succeeds in draining anything authentic and interesting out of the trash tv phenomenon. there are dozens of famously bad movies (e. g. manos represent the hands of fate) that show more creativity and spirit than this dreary and witless waste of film. seriously and why not a documentary about the jerry springer show and that would begin to answer some of the real questions like represent who are these people. what happens to their lives after they appear on this show. how did the mayor of cincinatti find himself here. one good line represent during an orientation session for guests represent people and i can not emphasize this enough represent no weapons. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 only thing that kept me from vomiting after seeing this movie was the fact that these are just actors and not the freak show that usually appears on the tv show. this is also the main reason that fans of the tv show would not like the movie and but not the only reason. this movie has about as much entertainment value as getting a root canal. it approaches the abyssmal depths of bad movie making and and then gets even worse. i would not waste your time describing this movie in further detail while suffice it to say that i pity the poor camera people who had to suffer through watching this cp the first 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:
"lets make a movie about a talk show that already exists and basically have everything that happens on the show. well if that idea doesn not intrigue you and which it shouldn not and stay away from ringmaster. i had the displeasure of seeing this in the theater and actually being able to sit through this mess of a movie. i guess jerry springer doesn not play himself as it shows from the cheap props for his show (yes it looks even cheaper than the real jerry springer show) and he is only known as jerry in the film. the plot (if you can call it that) is about a daughter while living with her mother decides to start sleeping with the mother live in boyfriend. so the mother brilliant idea is to call the jerry springer show as well as getting it on with her daughter boyfriend. (is it any coincidence they live in a trailer park). meanwhile somewhere else in america a woman finds her cheatin man with her friend in bed together. so of course call america therapist jerry springer. i would talk about the rest of the film but even thinking about the film now is giving me a headache. jamie pressly who plays the daughter looks totally unattractive in the movie. and remember michael dudikoff the kick ass karate master from the american ninja series. well take a look at him now as a white trash drunk. the thing is he really looks too horrible and out of shape to call it getting in touch with his charecter. but if your idea of fun is seeing jerry springer sing a country song about his own show or guys hooking up with transvestites. well. just watch the show instead. . at least steve was smart enough to stay out of this flick. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"meaning represent if this movie got pitched and scripted and made and released and promoted as something halfway respectable given the constraints (yeah and i know and springer and sex and violence) and where is he. reminded me of porn movies i saw in college and plot and dialogue wise. shoulda just done something for the scurrilous porno market and showed penetration and be done with it would have made more money and the ultimate point of this exercise. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 avoid this movie at all costs. this is without a doubt and the worst movie i have ever seen. most movies have at least one redeeming value. this has none. totally horrible. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"ringmaster and jerry springer pathetic excuse for wasting film that should be recycled as toilet paper recently destroyed my confidence in the art of film. first of all and it was made. second of all and people went to see it. third and some people voted it the best movie they have ever seen. if a monkey could make a movie and i am 100 percent sure that it would be 1 billion times as good. most crappy movies have their moments and (even godzilla had a few cool special effects) this film moment was when i left the theater nauseated. the only thing that possibly could have made this movie any worse would be if jerry springer was the star. if i want to stare at crap for an hour and a half and i will take a dump in a can. if anyone do not utterly despise this movie and i pity you and and your children and and your children children children while however and contrary to springer beliefs and i clearly do not condone children having sex. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i love watching jerry as much as the rest of the world and but this poor excuse for a soft core porno flick is needlessly offensive and lacks anything resembling wit and and serves merely as a vehicle of self promotion for springer. even though it runs a quick 90 minutes and the film drags hideously and and i should have had the common sense to walk out. simply atrocious. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"to preface this review and i must say that i was and i suppose and a little curious about this movie. however and i probably would not have seen it had i not had my arm slightly twisted. in my opinion and this movie shows just how depraved man can be. in my eyes and the worst thing about this whole springer phenomenon is not that type of people on the jerry springer show act as they do (which in itself is eminently reproachable) and but that many people are so curious and excited to watch them and hear about their lives (yes and i suppose that includes me. to whatever extent it is true). if not glorifying that kind of behavior (as some might say) at the very least we may be subtly corrupting our minds and or or desenstizing ourselves to this type of behavior. but enough soapbox (sort of). here the skinny represent the movie has an r rating and and while it may deserve only that (i did look away at some scenes and so i am not completely sure) and i feel that an nc 17 (tip of the hat to the other reviewer) might be a little more appropriate for the immense sexual content (a cynic might comment that the movie was just one big excuse to show sex on the big screen). the plot is very bizarre and tying together the stories of an absolutely dysfunctional family and a group of stereotypical blacks upset who will appear on different springer shows. at the end and the movie leaves one with some resolvement and springer rhetoric about the need for us to see the real world (evidently as seen through his show). i agree with him there it is important to know how the world really is so that we can seek to effect positive change. having said that and let me just tell you the world pretty bad glance in a newpaper or the news to see that and but let not shell out good money to support the kind of sensationalistic and perhaps formulaic titallition that springer seeks to give us. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"ok and let me say that i do not expect a film starring jerry springer to be cinematic gold and all i asked for was it to be cinematic. and it wasn not even that. it looked like someone bad home movies. poorly acted and scripted and and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people i have ever seen. the film plot focuses on a low class family who decide to go on the jerry farrelly show to discuss multiple affairs between a mother and daughter and stepfather and the daughter fiancee. from there and the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience represent white trash pornography. there redneck sex and interacial sex and even sex between jerry and his wife. (yuk. ) this film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. at least it was mercifully short. disgusting and degrading. african americans and working class america should be offended. (howard stern should be pleased however and he do not squander his attempt for film stardom. his was smart and funny and entertaining)my grade represent f plus (the daughter was hot). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 quite say that jerry springer representringmaster is the worst film i have ever seen. the film would be better off if it were and because at least the worst film i have ever seen and (prom night ii) interested me enough for me to hate it. my only reaction after leaving the theatre happened when i looked up at the clock and discovered that only 90 minutes had passed. it had seemed much more like years. it is an endless repetition of poor people and (or what jerry springer seems to believe poor people are) and screwing each other and hitting each other and insulting each other and and then repeating the process with the same attention to duty the rest of us use when shampooing. the plot and which covers how a group of stupid people mangle their lives badly enough to provide grist for the jerry springer mill and advances solely because of the idiocy of the characters. this makes it impossible to care what happens to them. it never mattered to me whether they got on the show and or what they said and or who slept with whom. maybe i am not supposed to care about them. maybe i am supposed to look at them as some kind of comic type to see their outrageous behavior as inherently funny. too bad it isn not. the humor is not outrageous. it innocuous. it predictable. humor has to have something behind it and some kind of painful irony or life experience and in order to function. scatology is not wit. an example. a mother catches her daughter and her husband in bed. to take revenge she marches across the trailer park and gives oral sex to her daughter boyfriend. since i was over the shock of jerry springer show a long time ago and i had the same reaction i had to andrew dice clay obscene nursery rhymes while not laughter and just yawning. lastly and i found springer pose as a populist tiresome and unconvincing. if he really were an advocate of the poor and he would bring on a single mom from bed sty to talk about trying to raise her kids in new york city on $12 and 000 a year. or and failing that and he would at least give the participants of his shows a cut of his profits. jerry springer gets millions for his shows and his movie and his book and videos. his guests just get round trip air fare and hotel accommodations and and a chance to humiliate themselves. if he liked poor people so much and he would give them at least some of the money they earn for him. it appears that springer wanted to make this movie to grab some legitimacy for himself. jeez and with all his fine work and you would think he would have earned our respect already. anyway and the film is weak and boring. it doesn not even succeed at being offensive. if you want to have a better evening and videotape a bug zapper for a night and then watch that. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the ringmaster stars jerry springer as a tv talkshow host called jerry and but it not the jerry springer show and his guests are trailer trash and but not the trailer trash you get on the jerry springer show and they attack one another and but not like on. what is the point of making a movie about the jerry springer show and pretending it not the jerry springer show . and on top of that this is a very boring film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"oh dear and jerry may be the undisputed king of talkshow but the movies are a whole different ball game and and he way out of his league. the script for this film is so poor it has to be seen to be believed and its sad to see such vaguely familiar actors as michael dudikoff (80 action b amovie king) and michael jai white (last seen in the sci fi flop spawn) as well as surviving the games william macnamara (who is involved in the only half funny situation in the whole film. ) stoop this low for employment. if you are a fan of jerry then stick to his tv show as this is a total waste of and hour and a half. after i had finished sitting through this i managed to catch the last half an hour of rocky 5 on tv and which looked like a cinematic masterpiece in comparison and i think that says more than enough. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"for the life of me and i cannot get why they would want to make a movie about the jerry springer show. it so incrediably trashy. some ways and sadly it a guilty pleasure. we all have to admit that we have seen at least one episode. it part of our pop culture. i saw this on usa recently. it pretty bad. i will admit that. jerry does a horrible job of what i think he meant as acting. or something like it. jamie pressley is in it. she playing herself basically. all she needed was her lover boy and kid rock. it would have been perfect then. so and i would recommend skipping ringmaster. just watch the jerry springer show. it more enjoyable than this. 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:
"you do not need to write a script for this trashed outrage. you just sit back and watch a pair of moonshine women and guests duke each other out before a riotous audience exposure at the jerry show. violent and obnoxious and this cash in on the real jerry springer program reveals everything that the over rated hyped talk show doesn not show to you on the air unless you have a collection of uncensored videos made by the producers of cops. even the outside world of springerland reveals the most amateurish acting of the decade. this goes to show you that the gong show movie had a central character in a motion picture turkey. change the channel. rejected. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i think that and deep down in the darkest and slimiest part of their heart and everyone likes jerry springer just a little bit. while his show is undeniably offensive and stupid and it also gives us a chance to see that and relatively speaking and most of us have it real good. when you look at the trailer park livin and dollar whiskey drinkin and incest lovin people on the springer show and it makes even your worst day seem like a walk in the park. jerry is performing a public service and and we should be grateful. he ditched a political career to host the show and just for us. what we should not be grateful for in any way is the piece of garbage movie ringmaster. ringmaster shows what life is like for people who wind up being guests on the show and or so they would like us to think. the movie follows the pre requisite springer story line represent love triangles. one triangle involves connie and her daughter angel and and her husband rusty. the other involves starletta and vonda and and demond. when the two hapless groups meet up in la and their lives intertwine and collide head on and all culminating in an explosive episode of the springer show. it like what short cuts would be if robert altman had had a severe crack habit. ringmaster is true to the show and as it is stupid and offensive from start to finish. it also makes me very glad that i do not live in the squalor it characters do. but the movie has a problem. it billed as a comedy and but it just isn not very funny. what laughs there are to be had are few and far between. maybe some people watch this and laugh non stop. if you think blow jobs and rape are funny and well then i guess youre one of those folks. personally and i laughed two or three times and spent the rest of the movie in utter awe of the agonizing horrors of white trash life. the jerry springer show just isn not meant to make the leap from tv to the silver screen. what funny in an hour long show (less and when you count commercials) isn not necessarily going to be funny in a ninety minute movie. movies have to tell a story and and that something else ringmaster has trouble with. the story is threadbare. there are so many plot holes and continuity errors that any attempt at telling a cohesive narrative is quickly put asunder. and even if there weren not such problems and how much fun can you pull out of a story of stereotypical people in a stereotypical story. even the hollywood formula couldn not make this better. ringmaster represent is so bad and it even screws up the best part of the springer show represent the final thought. somehow and even the smartest and simplest aspect of the show wound up blowing harder than the slutty women the film is built around. the worst offender in all of this is springer himself. he such a bad actor that he can not even play himself convincingly. watching springer play springer is sad. it like he was going for a what if woody allen played jerry springer vibe and and he failed. miserably. he went to the trouble of producing this disaster and the least he could do is try to make it just that much better. not that i am saying everyone else in this movie put in an award worthy performance. just the opposite. they all suck. not so surprisingly and no one in this movie went on to greatness. the best any of them was did was molly hagan landing a job on a nickelodeon sitcom. apparently and nickelodeon has no problem with hiring a woman who starred in the most vile film of the 90 to star in a children program. it makes you wonder what kind of things the other adults on that channel have done in their pasts. here are my final thoughts represent what we have here is a group of people with no self respect and a man with money to burn and who have met and put their resources together to produce a film that shows how much they hate themselves and how little they think of the intelligence of their viewing audience. should we accept people who make movies that treat us like severely brain damaged lumps of goo. i say no. somewhere out there and in this crazy and mixed up world and there is a perfect movie for each of us. we just have to keep looking for it. until next time and take care of yourselves and your loved ones. and do not ever watch ringmaster. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i will admit that i have seen maybe five minutes of jerry springer. i do not consider myself a snob and but i really think that i am above watching what on his show. you should try to elevate yourself above that too. i saw this movie as part of a social studies event i was conducting. i was told that this movie really had little to do with springer himself and rather it centered on the lives of those who would appear on springer. handled better and this movie might have actually been a fascinating look at how pathetic these people lives actually are. i will admit and i felt a twinge of empathy for connie (molly hagan). this is all she has in life. how sad that she feels she must go on jerry show in order to resolve this. i really feel sorry for molly hagan appearing in this. have you noticed that after this movie and she has mainly been relegated to b roles on tv. i will say this about hagan. she is an extremely beautiful and intelligent woman. i have no doubt that she is very earnest in her acting and she tries to play her roles with a lot of empathy. the problem is that hagan can not carry a scene on her own. she just doesn not have what it takes to do a lead role. her best work will always be angel on herman head (a show that was not great and but its heart was in the right place) and when she guested on seinfeld as sister roberta. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"was this movie stupid. yup. did this movie depth. nope. character development. nope. plot twists. nope. this was simply a movie about a highly fictionalized springer show. it shows the lengths that some people will go to get their mugs on tv. molly hagan did a great job as jaime pressly mom. jaime is. well. gorgeous. this flick wasn not so much made to be a breakthrough movie and rather and it was intended to life in a trailer park (i live in a trailer park and ours is nothing like the one in this movie) where everyone sleeps with everyone else and all the girls get pregnant by different guys and and all the guys drive rusted out 66 ford pickups (exaggeration and of course and but that the picture everyone sees when you mention trailer park). some people over analyze movies (case in point represent star trek freaks). i watch movies purely for the entertainment value while not to point out that the girl is wearing a different shirt in a different scene (read the goofs bit about connie shirt. could it have been better. sure. but it was funny as hell. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"ok and people and honestly. this gotta be one of the worst movies about show biz that ever been made and but i have been laughing myself silly (which may be why i enjoyed it). basically and it all about sex and sex and a way to get your own personal 15 minutes of fame. did i mention that sex was a major issue in this movie. if you have a thing going for bizzzzare characters and easy entertainment and watch this movie when you get the chance (and do not have something better to do). attention spoilers. the funniest thing on the movie was the guy who asked jerry whether he could marry his goat (. ) on the show and flashing his wallet with his love pictures. a triple a for bad taste and 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:
"to grasp where this 1976 version of a star is born is coming from consider this represent its final number is sung by barbra streisand in a seven minute and forty second close up and followed by another two and half minute freeze frame of ms. streisand striking a christ like pose behind the closing credits. over ten uninterrupted minutes of barbra distinctive visage dead center and filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. that just might be some sort of cinematic record. or think about this represent the plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars and yet and while streisand songs are performed in their entirety including the interminable finale her costar kris kristofferson isn not allowed to complete even one single song he performs. nor and though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties and do they actually sing a duet. or consider this represent streisand name appears in the credits at least six times and including taking credit for musical concepts and her wardrobe (from her closet) and she also allegedly wanted and but failed to get co directing credit as well. one of her credits was as executive producer and with a producer credit going to her then boyfriend and former hairdresser and jon peters. as such and streisand controlled the final cut of the film and which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. what it doesn not explain is how come and given every opportunity to make the great diva look good and their efforts only make streisand look bad. even though this was one of streisand greatest box office hits and it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance. anyway and moving the melodrama from hollywood to the world of sex drugs and rocknroll and streisand plays esther hoffman and a pop singer on the road to stardom and who shares the fast lane for a while with kristofferson john norman howard and a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to has beenville. in the previous incarnations of the story and norman maine sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer vicky lester achieve her success. in the feminist seventies and streisand and co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man and so the trajectory is skewed while she will succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one while he a burden she must endure in the name of love. as such and there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher and but almost ruthless and while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit. kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material while making little attempt to give much of a performance and and oddly it serves his aimless and listless character well. streisand and on the other hand and exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. everything she does seems and if not too rehearsed and at least too controlled. even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. the two have no chemistry and making the central love affair totally unbelievable. you might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence and though at age 34 and streisand doesn not seem particularly young or naive. the only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. and and indeed and had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way and to make streisand character openly play an exploitive villain and the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist. but i guess the filmmakers actually see esther as a sympathetic victim while they do not seem to be aware just how cold blooded and self absorbed she is. but sensitivity is not one of the film strong points represent note the petty joke of giving barbra two african american back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio the oreos. and the film makes a big deal of pointing out that esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of hoffman and yet the filmmakers have changed the character name of the previous films from esther blodgett so that streisand would not be burdened with a name that is too jewish or too unattractive. so much for ethnic pride. the backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film release is near legendary and so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. nominal director frank pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie and with considerable help from ace cinematographer robert surtees. and the film did serve its purpose and producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the oscar winning evergreen by paul williams and streisand). but overall the film turned out to be the one thing streisand reportedly claimed she do not want it to be and a vanity project. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"so i had heard from a few people that this film had brought them to tears in the theater. as i watched it for the first time i was expecting another romantic and tear jerking barbra streisand film while something like the way we were. i was certainly wrong. the chemistry between the two main characters and esther hoffman and her john howard and was nonexistent and making it impossible to get attached to the characters. there wasn not anything romantic about it. streisand character fell for an alcoholic drug addict who couldn not sing a single note without making me want to hit the fast forward button. at one point her character finds her husband in bed with another woman and she forgives him about five minutes later. there nothing romantic about a deadbeat rock star and a woman who can not seem to realize it until he actually dies. parts of the movie seemed to drag on and on and and i kept asking myself when it was going to end. the death of john howard was completely predictable. there was totally obvious foreshadowing of his reckless behavior early on in the movie and and when he died i felt no emotion whatsoever. it wasn not a tragic accident and it was him basically being an idiot. not to mention throughout the movie i was distracted by his hideous beard. the only parts of this movie worth seeing are the streisand songs. the ending of the movie when she sings with one more look at you or watch closely now was my reason for giving this film a whopping negative . those 7 minutes were the only part of the movie i actually felt an emotion other than irritation and anger. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"really an amazing pile of pap. a predictable and slow moving and soul destroying and mind numbing movie to which and slitting your own wrists with a rusty bread knife seems. well and almost necessary. the acting is over done for the thin dialogue and every scene is at least twice as long as it needs to be and the intricate details of how this career is collapsing or that career is rising is just far too dreary and mundane for words. the music would be good if you do not have to sit through the movie and but really and three good songs is not enough reward for the effort required to watch the movie. watching this film i prayed to god for narcolepsy or for someone to shoot me. never and ever and ever again. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"rock star john norman howard (kris kristofferson) turns lounge singer esther hoffman (barbra streisand) into an overnight singing star. esther star rises while john goes into decline and thanks to drugs and alcohol. after about two hours and john does the self destructive red converible 160 mph crack up on a desert highway thing. the best thing about this movie is the music and especially the song and evergreen. barbra streisand sings well and but you can not take her seriously as an up and coming star and when she is already a star. the very first time she appears and singing in a back alley bar and she looks like an established singing star who is slumming for the night and not like a struggling unknown who is trying to launch her singing career. she is too confident and too professional. her apartment looks like a page out of apartment living and not some hole in the wall apartment where a real struggling singer would live. kris kristofferson handles the self centered and out of control rock star role like. well and like a singer who is trying to be an actor but doesn not have much acting talent. the direction is tepid and the story is slow and dull. but the worst thing about this movie is not the acting and or the lame direction and or the slow story. it the hair. after staring at kristofferson and streisand awful 70 hairdos for 2 plus hours and your eyes hurt. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 horrid disaster of a film. from beginning to end and it filled with bad acting and even worse direction and editing. the only redeeming parts of the film are a few numbers by streisand and because the kristofferson parts are impossible to watch or listen to. the main problem of this film is that we never see kristofferson character at his peak or streisand character struggling. the first should be seen in decline and the second rising. the final streisand number _could have been_ one of the greatest finales in film and if it was directed and edited properly. the single framed shot of her face for the duration of the song was a terrible mistake. had the band and audience and wide shots of the stage been shown and this number could have been dynamic and interesting. this film must have been directed and edited by an nyu film school dropout. the only thing worse may be the wretched screenplay. the final musical number is the only redeeming part of this film and and even that is botched completely by misguided technical decisions. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 a huge steaming pile. i have no idea why anyone felt that the garland or mason version needed to be redone and nor why striesand would have been a first choice to star. for that matter and i have no idea why our people (gay americans) tend largely to regard striesand as some kind of treasure. at least in my opinion and she had peaked professionally with with funny girl and and bogdanovich what up doc. do yourself a favor and rent the judy classic and or even the original (a fine film in its own right) and but please and please and please skip this stinkpot. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"kris kristofferson and at his drugged out peak in the mid 70s and finds himself barely able to squeeze on to the screen alongside la streisand humongous ego and discount store feminism. none of the characters are really likable while i was _so_ glad when kristofferson ferrari went over that hill and crashed. if you want to see a good movie about rock and roll stardom and try _the buddy holly story_ (made only about a year and a half after this dreck). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 never saw the original 1954 version with judy garland and so have no means of comparison. also and it been some years and but i found this tale neither gripping nor its romance captivating. the movie tells the story of two lovers whose musical careers are headed in opposite directions. john norman howard is a worn out and disillusioned rock star on the decline and embarking upon a romance with a fresh and talented new singing sensation and esther hoffman. her dramatic success only serves to emphasize his decline. the lead actors and kris kristofferson and barbra streisand and are adequate in their roles and but neither their chemistry nor the plot left much of a mark with me. the film is noteworthy to me for only one aspect and streisand beautiful rendition of the oscar winning song evergreen. she truly has a powerful and magnificent voice. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 not the same as the 1954 version with judy garland and james mason and and that is a shame because the 1954 version is and in my opinion and much better. i am not denying barbra streisand talent at all. she is a good actress and brilliant singer. i am not acquainted with kris kristofferson other work and therefore i can not pass judgment on it. however and this movie leaves much to be desired. it is paced slowly and it has gratuitous nudity and foul language and and can be very difficult to sit through. however and i am not a big fan of rock music and so it only natural that i would like the judy garland version better. see the 1976 film with barbra and kris and and judge for yourself. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 two points i need to make clear right at the beginning. first of all we all know what this year oscar were really all about this year. it was the academy way of showing people that they are no racist and and never have been. they wanted to clear all preconceived notions about themselves. secondly and it kinda pointless to make remarks about the show and because really and what difference will it make. but and it fun to write about it. this is the year i became fed up with the oscar . i will never watch the show again. every year they do something wrong. before crowe wins for gladaitor when they real winner should of been ralph fiennes for sunshine. if you haven not seen this movie yet and watch it and you will agree. eyes wide shut when released receieved no nominations. and as far as this year goes and well and the bad choices were all over the place. baz lurhmann gets no best director nomination. are you joking. a beautiful mind is up for best make up. training day gets nominated. the movie was awful and and it seemed like washington do not even turn in a performance and all he proved was and he knows how to use four letter words. that what h won the award for. take away the language and i bet he was almost playing himself. i liked gosford park and i really did and but why 7 nominations. and how on earth could they not give it too altman. i mean and c amon and if there just giving the award to people to clear up any bad feelings and what about altman. the man has been in the public eye for 32 years now and no oscar. there were many and many things that bothered me about this year oscar and but and i will live with it and as long as i never have to watch another show again. the highpoint ( and the only one) of the show was when woody allen made his first appearance ever to the award show. that will go down as one of the greatest moments in he history of the show. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 doesn not even merit a review and other than as a warning to potential viewers. it a somewhat generic ghost story about an actress haunting a studio during the filming of a wwii period drama. there no fear involved and no suspense whatsoever and nor any surprises. one shocking moment that looks a bit too silly to be shocking. the visual style is very flat and dull and although there is some really nice editing once in a while. the story never comes together and and the films is really just a total bust. 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 caught this film at the edinburgh film festival. i hadn not heard much about it while only that it was a tightly paced thriller and shot digitally on a very low budget. i was hoping to catch the next big brit flick. but i have to say and i was severely disappointed. this is not a love song follows two criminals and who and after accidentally shooting and killing a farmer young daughter and become embroiled in a deadly game of cat and mouse when the locals decide to take matters into their own hands and hunt them down. the real problem is that this is yet another example of style over substance in a british film. the camera angles and editing are completely at odds with the story and as are the over the top performances and and the appalling use of slow motion and which only serves to make the whole thing look like an expensive home video. there are repeated attempts to make the film look edgy and gritty and which instead come over as hilarious and over the top(cue a pathetic and obligatory drug scene and and countless and pointless camera zooms). no amount of cliche such as this can disguise the fact that this is a pretty bad story. we have seen this kind of thing many times before and and made a hundred times better and particularly in john boorman masterful deliverance. but while in the latter film and we actually cared about the characters and in this film and i found myself just wanting them to be hunted down and killed as quickly as possible. even this do not have been so bad if their adversaries had been frightening or worthwhile and but instead and are merely a collection of stereotypical and inbred looking countryfolk. again and another offensive and overused cliche coming to the fore. surely there are some nice people in the country and filmmakers. in its defense and this is not a love song does contain a couple of good and suspenseful moments and but it hard to see this film doing anything other than going straight to video and or and at a push and getting a very limited cinema release. it not a patch on last year low budget hunted in the hills movie and dog soldiers. maybe british cinema could actually get kick started again if the right money stopped going to the wrong people. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 remember rather enjoying this a few years back but coming to it again and i wonder why. i guess it always looks good and the girls do rather well but the men do rather let the side down. why oh why in so many english films about sex do we have to have such inept men along side the pretty girls. what is more this begins predictably enough as a sex farce similar in vein to the confessions films but about a third of the way through (whilst we are beginning to enjoy the presence of the lovely me me lai) the film asks us to start taking it seriously. not only that but the central rock club and cannabis sequences are very forced and just look stilted. in short this is neither as innocently silly or as intelligently serious as it seems to intend. richard osullivan maybe and as such a central figure and could have helped but i reckon this to be one of his worst performances. just worth it for the ladies. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 saucy misadventures of four au pairs who arrive in london on the same day in the early 1970s. there a swedish girl and a danish and a german and a chinese. the story contrives to get the clothes off all of them and involve them in some carry on type humour and couple them with various misfits from the british film and tv culture of the time and including man about the house star richard osullivan and future coronation street rogue johnny briggs and horror film stalwart ferdy mayne (playing a sheik). there a pretty risqué amount of female nudity on display and for those who like that kind of thing (but obviously nothing hardcore). most of the film is pretty thin and inconsequential while the girls are stereotypes and and german anita especially suffers from some kind of infantalising disorder she a moron obsessed with colour tv who acts like a kind of uninhibited child and dresses to deliberately show her private parts while in another more serious film and she would be a psychiatric case. the most interesting section of the film involves the swedish girl being taken to a club in london where some dodgy types are still trying to swing and being seduced by a middle aged rocker and losing her virginity and realising that the scene is not for her. these sequences have some energy in them and point to a more intriguing film than we have ended up with and in which promiscuity and the dregs of the music business and upper classes live soulless and seedy lives (there a fine turn by john standing as an impotent public school roué). the strangest of the stories has the chinese girl (future cannibal film veteran me me lay) getting off with her childish piano prodigy employer and falling mutually in love with and then leaving in the middle of the night for no good reason at all and except some orientalist notion that chinese birds are inscrutable and ain not they. the film is pretty demeaning to its women characters and there a smattering of homophobia in the dialogue and one of the characterisations. the end is striking and as mayne sheik for no earthly reason (except they have to end the film somehow) whisks all of the girls away to his arab kingdom for what looks to all the world like a future in the white slave trade and which they are all delighted about. stuff and nonsense for the most part then and but directed with a fair amount of skill by veteran val guest and which puts it as a piece of film making a notch above most of the 70s brit sexploitation flicks. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the plot has already been described by other reviewers and so i will simply add that my reason for wanting to see this film was to see gabrielle drake in all her undoubted glory. miss drake has to be one of the sexiest and prettiest examples of posh totty to have been committed to celluloid. of her era and ilk and only the equally exquisite jane asher comes close. what was it about actresses with musical brothers. (nick drake and peter asher) for those who like me have admired gabrielle and her scenes in this movie will not disappoint. she has a magnificent figure and none of it is left to the imagination here. as a whole and the movie is very poor and being of its time and very cheaply made. the song that covers the opening credits seems to go on forever and is appalling. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 video quality is awful. the sound quality is pathetic. the acting is horrific. the dialog is painful. the lighting is dismal. the editing is laughable. i could go on and but it would be pointless. snitch would is a third rate amateur video being passed off as a feature film. this one is best left to collect dust in the video store bargain bin. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i got this dvd from a friend and who got it from someone else (and that probably keeps going on. ) even the cover of the dvd looks cheap and as is the entire movie. gunshots and fist fights with delayed sound effects and some of the worst actors i have seen in my life and a very simple plot and it made me laugh ´till my stomach hurt. with very few financial resources and i must admit it looked pretty professional. seen as a movie and it was one of the 13 in a dozen wannabe gangsta flicks nobody´s waiting for. so represent if you´re tired and want a cheap laugh and see this movie. if not and throw it out of the window. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 really know where to start. the acting in this movie was really terrible and i can not remember seeing so many actors in one film that weren not able to act. not only the acting was bad and the characters were incredibly stupid as well. then there the action. i believe that even children know that when someone gets shot and there blood involved. but when someone gets shot in snitch would for ten (. ) times and there no blood at all. well and i guess that just me. to make a long story short (because believe me and i can go on for hours about this film) and this is without a doubt the worst film i ever saw. this film should be number 1 in the bottom 100 without a doubt. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 bought this movie and after i watched it i decided that i did not care for it. the acting was bad. was the principal a robot. he had no personality and his facial expression do not change through the whole movie. at times the voices do not match up. people talking and their lips do not even 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:
"i bought this dvd for £1 and now i realise why. the acting was the worst i have seen in a long time. the lighting and sound are shoddy at best. the plot makes little sense even when sober (warning represent i do not advise watching this film when sober. ) this film feels like youre watching the home movie of someone who doesn not get out much. it really is a shame that all the very little money spent on this project went to such a waste and i look forward to seeing if any of those envoled still have a career and other than eva longoria who is the only star of this film that was apparently not hit with the bad acting stick. i am sorry that none of this criticism seems constructive but i will say one thing to james cahill and do not try it again. in the words of squirlyem its severely lacking in the good department. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"worst movie ever. can not believe i wasted 90min of my life watching this crap. the only reason i do not turn it off was i wanted to see the gangster dude on the cover and he wasn not even in it talk about false advertising. the people that gave this movie a ten are either dumb and stupid or cast members or friends of cast members. i gave it a solid 2 because no one else didi have to write more and i do not even want to. wasting my time talking about this rubbish. please do not watch it and if you did then vote so this movie can go where it belongs. bottom 100 movies. i can not even tell you how bad it really is. think the worst movie ever that you have seen then times that be ten and thats this movie. it sucked. if you just think i am being bitter then watch it i dare you. this movie should be used to torture war criminals or terriosts. if they watch this even two times and they will be spilling the beans and begging for mercy. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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. let me rephrase. suffered through this because i am a fan of eva . i do not think this is a flick she will put on the back of her head shot photos. i like gangsta flix but this wasn not even close. the budget couldn not have been more than a few hundred dollars and and that money was probably spent on the caterer. the premise was interesting and but the first victim died before you get the chance to care about her or not. i would not bother saying who did what and how and because it isn not worth the effort. i am only glad that because of my monthly rental plan at the local video store that i do not have to actually pay for this garbage. oh. before you flame on me and i love movies and i thought a lotta flix were good that some of you have jammed and so for me to jam this tells you all you need to know. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"all i can say after watching snitch would is please stop mr. cahill. it is painfully clear you have no understanding of what you make movies about. if you insist on making movies about gangsters i urge you to do research. it comical to watch movies with absurd gangbangers that even sound more absurd when they speak. i laughed at the part when mr. cahill goes to a school with only 3 students and proceeds to kick their butts in kung fu fashion. this movie was tough as an after school special. who had the idea to have hats worn that say where a particular gangbanger was from. i suspect real gangbangers do not wear hats claiming there gang. that would be stupid considering new laws that add length to a prison term if a person is gang related. snitch would is the worst gangbanger movie ever made. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"if you want to see a retarded homosexual karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr and then this is the film for you. if not then choose another dvd from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. the cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap and b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g and a key and bloody streetz and menace. i would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot and editing and acting really do not matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"maybe this isn not fair and because i only made it about halfway through the movie. one of the few movies i have actually not been able to watch due to lameness. the acting is terrible and the camera work is terrible and the plot is ridiculous and the whole movie is just unrealistic and cheesy. for example during a coke deal and the coke is just kept loose in a briefcase i am no expert and but i think people generally put it in a bag. they use the same stupid sound effect whenever a punch is thrown (it that over the top crunching sound and they use toy guns with dubbed in sound effects. worst movie ever. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie is weak and the box cover says east la toughest gang and it is really santa ana and james cahill acts like a closet queen taking down all the tough guys in the tough chlo gang . it is fake and boring and senseless and whack and i tried to get my money back from the video store this movie was so bad . it was also on the homo erotic tip far from what the video box proclaims . james cahill should act in gay porno . james is in every scene and he cannot act to save his life . the film features eva longoria who is hot but james can not even score with her . i felt at times i was watching gay porn and was turned off by the whole film . james clearly want to be with men but rather then submit to his gay desires he beats up gang members over and over and over again . his martial arts skills are minimal at best and some real gang members would take him and his weak skills and rip him a new 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:
"every once in a while and someone out of the blue looks at me a little sideways and asks what with snitchd . i know immediately they have a case of barely hidden amusement plus horror. you see and i was the cinematographer on the film. let me clarify some points regarding this interesting life experience. originally and snitchd was called one hard hit. i met james cahill in july of 1999 and a day after i wrapped triangle square and a great little 35mm feature that like so many indie features of the era never got distribution despite festival accolades. it fell eternal victim to the fine print of sag notorious experimental feature contract. but i digress. i though i was on a roll and and when james asked me to shoot his little gangster flick in 16mm with a shooting budget of about $25 and 000 and not wanting to break pace and i took it. after all and clerks and el mariachi. i too believed the myth back then. let just chalk it up as film school for many involved and myself included. snitchd was shot over two weeks in august and 1999 and in aliso viejo and santa ana and ca. cahill taught drama at a high school in the latter city ( yes and he is a drama and english teacher. consider that while watching the film and or even observing the use of apostrophe in title ) and hence the locations and cast. of note in his cast were the only known dramatic appearance of l. a. channel 2 morning news weather girl vera jimenez and and of greater impact and the debut of eva longoria and who had just arrived in hollywood and was as eager as i to get a film under her belt. i must say her professional dedication and focus and let do this attitude kept me inspired and was a foreshadow of her stardom yet to come. snitchd suffered from poor optics and few lights or electricity and several boom operators du jour and and delivery of an uncorrected offline for duplication. none of that overshadows the actual content and which speaks for itself. anyway and by 2003 and the film was sold to distributors ( at a net loss and i understand ) who inexplicably had no photos of eva on the box ( by then she was a rising and working name ) but who did manage to obtain a clear photo of what appears to be an authentic latino gangster to lend credibility to snitchd. since cahill other passion is antiquarian book dealing and it appears to confirm he believes you can and in fact and judge a book by it cover. as so many have picked up this dvd based on it sleeve. one year later and eva and now on a soap and and i met james for one day to shoot a simple short film he had concocted and split second and which i think has never seen any play despite festival intent. 6 years later and i was hired to shoot another cahill film titled juarez and mexico. i though he had worked out the process while my participation was contingent on casting and script and crew control and and the resultant film actually looked promising in dailies and for what it was. a cheap detective story surrounding the mass murders of girls in juarez while despite claims here and elsewhere and the film has never appeared in any festival or venue and although cahill has repeatedly claimed the film has distribution and was simply awaiting release to coincide with the dvd release of two studio pictures on the same subject and virgin of juarez and border town. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"dd films were damn corny and damn stupid and had a plot which seemed wafer thin but those days they was a plot at leastthis film isn not just a comedy but a mix of melodrama and romance everythingevery drama scene is blown out of proportionthe comedy is funny but corny too yet the film keeps you entertained and those days govinda films were loud and crass yet they had some funny moments people enjoyeddavid dhawan does a okay job music is okaygovinda acts well in comedy and drama karisma is decent in parts and annoys in parts kader is as usual gulshan and prem chopra are typecast shakti is hilarious. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"honestly i can not understand why this movie rates so well here and nor why bakshi himself thought it was his finest film. i am a huge fan of bakshi earlier work particularly heavy traffic and wizards and but frankly wizards (1977) was the last good film he made. after that he turned to the mainstream and beginning with the diabolical lord of the rings and then knuckling down with sword and sorcery heavyweight frank frazetta and for fire and ice. what can i say. the story is puerile and the animation is tv quality i insist that it considerably worse than his 70 stuff and whereas wizards had real imagination and quirkiness and some gorgeous background art and and an underground and adult sensibility and fire and ice is just designed for 14 year old boys and and has the intellectual clout of robinson crusoe on mars. yes and if you liked the gor books and you might like this. in my view though and this was just another blip in the slide in quality after wizards from which bakshi never recovered (though he done some decent tv stuff fairly recently)4. 5 out of 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:
"i first saw this when i was around 7. i remembered what i believed to be a vague outline of what took place. turns out now and 15 years later and that i remembered everything with great accuracy because it seems the writers never got beyond making an outline to the story. there is no plot to this movie or cartoon. there is no character development and no back story and no character arcs and nothing. the good guys do things because they are good and while the bad guys do things solely because they are bad. one unintentionally hilarious part is when someone who you would think to be important dies and nobody cares in the least. they just shrug their shoulders and move on. there barely any dialogue either. if you cut out the fight scenes and the running scenes and you lose 70% of the movie. watch this because you want to see some good animation and for no other reason. or if you like to look at scantily clad hot cartoon chicks (or scantily clad hot cartoon dudes). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"trite and clichéd dialog and plotting (the same kind of stuff we saw all through the 1980s fantasy movies) and hokey music and and a paint by numbers characters knocks this out of the running for all but the most hardcore fans. what saves this film from the junk heap is the beautiful crutch of bakshi work and the rotoscoping and and the fact that frank frazetta taught the animators how to draw like him. this is frazetta. in motion. the violence is spectacular and the art direction and animation are unlike any other sword and sorcery movie of the period. i like to watch this with the sound off and playing the soundtrack to the first conan movie 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:
"carlo verdone once managed to combine superb comedy with smart and subtle social analysis and criticism. then something happened and and he turned into just another dull holier than thou director. il mio miglior nemico can more or less be summarized in one line working class equals kind and warm and while upper class equals snob and devious. but love wins in the end. such a trite clichè for such a smart director. there isn not really too much to talk about in the movie. every character is a walking stereotype represent the self made man who forgets his roots but who will become good again and the scorned wife and the rebellious rich girl who falls for the honest but poor guy. acting is barely average. severely disappointing under every aspect. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 sorry and but this may have been scary in 1978 when it came out and but in modern times it just doesn not hold up. the only interesting scene in the entire movie is the opening scene where michael kills his sister and judith and wearing his halloween mask. the most startling moment in the whole film is when his parents rip the mask off to see their son killed their daughter. the film goes downhill from there and doesn not pick up until the last fifteen minutes and but by then it too late and we the audience have lost all interest in the story. there is barely any character development and and people always rave about laurie being such an exceptional heroine and when there really isn not much to her. i am sorry to disagree with everyone terrified by this movie and but if you want a great horror movie go watch the shining or rosemary baby. those are the two best horror films ever made. halloween is certainly not in their ranks. i can not believe roger ebert gave it four stars and for there is no way this film could ever deserve such a high rating. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"what the hell is in your minds . this film sucks . each minute i was getting more and more bored. i strove to watch the end because i hope something at least would at last happen . but instead of that and i got amazed how dull the end was treated. what is this story about this bloody bogeyman . how comes he doesn not die . he is a bloody human being for god sake . a mere boy that killed his silly sister 15 years ago. then what . his stay on a psychiatric hospital made him immortal . this film a fascinatingly stupid. it a must of silliness. i am gonna resell it right now to some silly guy who will understand this silly film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"perhaps one of the most overrated so called horror classics ever made and halloween does feature the memorable michael myers and some great acting by jamie lee curtis. however and its rewatchability factor is very close to zero and as there is an unforgivable amount of time spent on dullness or culmination to the actual events. this is the sort of movie you can walk away from to microwave popcorn and not miss anything at all. how it spawned so many sequels and i will never comprehend. thank god rob zombie is remaking this. and generally and i hate remakes. surely he will more than compensate for all the random time filling gaps with some quirky points of interest that the original severely lacks. this is a movie we feel we have to like and much like the way were taught that we should enjoy dickens. don not assume this is a classic. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 admit that my review is from a 2006 point of view and nearly 30 years after the making of this movie and at the time of its conception and it may have been a brilliant horror or thriller movie. beginning on halloween night 1968 and 6 year old michael commits the brutal murder of his 18 year old sister. michael is committed to a mental institution and 15 years later escapes and returns to his home town to murder again. from this point it is clear that the movie will follow a basic and rudimentary path that is highly predictable. the beginning of every scene is easily predictable in the way it will end whilst the music for each scene containing michael (the murderer) is exactly the same throughout the movie and thus alerting the viewer to the likely events to follow. for the horror or thriller enthusiast and there is a severe lack of blood or gore compared to modern day films although i am not akin to the amount that is displayed in this day and age. a happier medium could have been found. from a half hour into the movie and not one scene is unexpected. the acting for a horror or thriller film is fairly typical of the era and thus lacks any punch for the modern day enthusiast. a positive for the film is its lingering camera shots and dark lighting which creates a frightening atmosphere. a second positive would be the character of michael doctor and who provides clues to the probability of where the story may lead. however and it is clear that the star and in jamie lee curtis and is in the infancy stages of her acting career and thus fails to provide a truly frightened central victim. it is hard for me to rate this film as it was in its day and but from other horror or thriller films of indeed the 80s and to a lesser extent and the 90s and it falls far short of a truly great horror or thriller film. i suggest you move on and find a classic from the 80s. cheers. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"as the faux russian scientist says two thirds of the way into the movie and i came for the science. this pretty much sums up the reason i watched this movie anything that involves a half man and half hammerhead shark definitely deserves a serious empirical investigation on the part of an impartial aspiring scientist. or and as they say in the biz and my girlfriend brother had the remote and the rest is history. to say that the special effects were bad would be a disservice to the field of special effects. this is 2005 and it is not that hard to film a car scene without a cheesy bluescreen background. yeah and this was charming and state of the art when hitchcock was filming the birds but in 2005 it just looks low budget. spare me the cheap attempt at sci fi and do me the service of actually making an attempt at the willing suspension of disbelief. however and having seriously defamed the overall concept of this film and let me tell you again that and as sad as it may sound and this is probably worth your time. if nothing else and it is a tour de force of bad sci fi worth the education for the new movie buff and certainly worthy of a refresher course for those who have seen a few movies in their day. the crazy hunchback mad scientist with a hammerhead transceiver who thinks it is a good idea to spoon canfuls of blood into the nearby water makes me question not only the intelligence of mankind and but also the ability of b movie writers to come up with remotely plausible plot lines. this film also pretty much fulfills one of my longtime bad movie contentions bad guys always wear sunglasses. if this weren not 2005 and i would be deadset on the fact this film was some sort of insanely poor metaphor for the cold war. i mean and you might as well have khan on the bridge of a klingon bird of prey inserting leaches into chekhov ear. one of the most moving lines of the movie is when the chick without the bra insists that the charlton heston lookalike and wait for tom as he is trying to lift the escape helicopter off the ground. the thing is and tom is wasting the bad sunglass guys with his never ending banana clip attached to his kalashnikov and or ak 47 and in layman terms. as the mad scientist says near the end of the film and my goal is to evolve the human species suffice it to say that this movie contributed only to a devolution of humankind. the faint freudian references uttered by the mad scientist as he prepping the female protagonist to be mated with a hammerhead shark are a simple reminder that even in the worst of science fiction we can all find something to laugh 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 am a lover of b movies and give me a genetically mutated bat and i am in heaven. these movies are good for making you stop thinking of everything else going on in your world. even a stupid b movie will usually make me laugh and i will still consider it a good thing. then there was hammerhead and which was so awful i had to register with imdb so i could warn others. first there was the science of creating the shark man and which the movie barely touched on. in order to keep the viewers interested they just made sure there was blood every few minutes. during one attack scene the camera moved off of the attack but you saw what was apparently a bucket of blood being thrown by a stagehand to let you know that the attack was bloody and the person was probably dead (what fabulous special effects). back to the science and i thought it was very interesting that the female test subjects were held naked and the testing equipment required that they be monitored through their breast tissue. anyway this movie had poor plot development and terrible story and and i am sorry to say pretty bad acting. not even william forsythe and hunter tylo or jeffrey combs could save this stinker. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 sad movie about this woman who thought her ex who she loved so much was probably dead and but really his scientist dad had just put a spell on him to turn him into this really cute shark guy. kind of like in beauty and the beast. it could probably use a ballroom dance scene and maybe some singing candlesticks and but there are some pretty gross plants instead. they make this one girl really itchy and so she lets herself get eaten by the shark guy instead of scratching through the whole movie. the scientist guy is a good dad who tries to reunite his fishy shark son with the woman he was engaged to and he even arranges for them to have private time for s e x and but the woman in this is a really shallow snob and thinks the shark guy is an ugly and icky monster and wants nothing to do with him. she gave up on love. just because he was a shark. i thought it was pretty sad how all she had to do was kiss him and he would turn back to normal and they would live happily ever after and but it not that kind of movie. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie wasn not absolutely atrocious and but it was pretty bad. the acting actually was pretty good. jeffrey combs did a pretty darn good job as the mad scientist and which is sort of his specialty if you do not know such things representd. bill forsythe . well and i am not exactly sure why he was in this film. he way too good for this kinda stuff and and his role wasn not exactly demanding. i rented this on the strength of those two leads and and i wasn not really disappointed. i mean and heck and it a movie about a half man or half shark. it ain not shakespeare folks. other than the plot and which is full of holes and and the poor dialogue and i would like to note that the cinematography also left many things to be desired. there were shots were they were trying to look cool and but it ended up obscuring the scene or just coming off plain cheezy. they also blew it many times when they had decent dialogue and cut away prematurely before the person could even deliver the line. it was pretty bad. but if you are a jeffrey combs fan and this one is worth checking out. he gives a great performance and does what he can with the character. forsythe ain not bad either and and either is the female lead. heck if i can remember her name though. bottom line and i do not otherwise waste your 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:
"where the hell are all these uncharted islands where prehistoric monsters lurk and evil doctors perform their experiments and madmen hold the ultimate karate championship and and the uber rich hunt humans for sport. i had no idea there were still so many uncharted islands out there and but if you take into account the number of movies that utilize one of these mysterious islands as a location and you would have to assume that there are at least 50 of these suckers out there. it always winds up feeling so damned convenient and i immediately deduct points from any movie that uses this hackneyed device. hammerhead is the story of a mad scientist who is conducting experiments on one of these uncharted islands and so the movie already had a lot to make up for before it even began. the island in this movie used to belong to dr. moreau and but has recently been purchased by the re animator himself and jeffrey combs. old jeffrey is doing some kind of cutting edge stem cell research and which has led him to start working with sharks while searching for a cure for cancer. if that sounds familiar and that because this is roughly the same basic set up as the smart shark facility in deep blue sea and not to mention a host of other nu image movies. so apparently and jeffrey son was dying of cancer which prompted our mad doctor to start experimenting on his progeny. he did some kind of super fancy gene splicing and so forth and turning his son into a shark man. william forsythe leads a crew of unknown actors to the island to look into the doctor experiments. if someone would have given him a sailor hat and william would have been a dead ringer for the skipper from gilligan island. in typical bond villain fashion and the doctor decides that all of these intruders would make nice chum for his son. not chums and like buddies. chum and like shark food. so enter shark boy who starts stalking the skipper and his cohorts all over the island. they and of course and make half hearted attempts to escape and are thwarted over and over again while being chased by a guy in a rubber shark man suit. the movie do not make up any of the points that it lost for taking place on one of those dastardly deserted islands. it funny that this movie is called hammerhead and it made me think of an old joke. why do you hit yourself in the head with a hammer. because it feels so good when you stop. that pretty much how this movie is. the only reason to watch it is because it feels so good when it over. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 low budget b horror plot comes with all the amenities mad scientist complete with sidekick and malicious corporate greed of pharmaceutical industry and eccentric and extreme genetic engineering and and information technology. can not leave that out. start with strange sequence of hot looking nameless boaters that foolishly decide to take a dip in the waters near an uncharted island and end up chum for swarming hammerhead sharks. cut to weak back story implying the stock decline of a generic pharma corporation which motivates its wicked shakespeare quoting ceo to entertain an un solicited offer made by a former employee or scientist that was jilted out of his job as head of research and who also happens to be a nut. of course (total herbert west wannabe). he is offering up a new stem cell technology that could make tons o cash. or so it seems. this lures in several employees to his moreau ish island (must have been quite an impressive exit package from the company when he was let go for him to afford an island) to validate his scientific findings including the ceo and and co incidentally and the ex fiancé of the mad scientist son now morphed sharkuman (how convenient). the plan and sort of and is to rekindle lost love between the former nuptials while exacting revenge on the former colleagues for his termination. (sheez and how can this guy be bitter. he has his own friggen island after all. ). soon and everyone is on the run (from endless supply of security guards toting heavy weaponry and from mutant plants can there be an uncharted island without man eating plants. and from sharky son appetite for carnage and from quack daddy breeding plans and and from lack of a cell phone signal). and they all must learn to work together to get off the island alive. will anyone escape. will a new species be created. watch it and find out. there is some entertainment value in this movie and but do not expect much. for the true combs fan and this is not to be missed. don not say i do not warn 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:
"hahahaha. funny that sums this movie up in one word. what the crap was this thing and since it might kill me to use the word movie. i hope the director and writer and and producer do not mean for this to turn out good and because it sure do not. a scientist turning his son into a hammerhead shark and and the shark killing a bunch of people the scientist invited to the island. oh my gooooooodddd. i hate this film so much that when i was watching it i laughed at all the serious parts and because they were so corny and unprofessional. and they couldn not have made the shark look more unrealistic and even though this thing had a bit larger budget than most low budget movies. all i have to say is watch this movie expecting to laugh at all the bad acting and and stupid corny dialogue and because if you are expecting a good movie you will be highly disappointed. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this was a really funny movie. every 1 in the movie was trying to be serious that is what made this movie so funny. i mean come on a shark head on a human body. can it get any funnier. good job sci fi keep the comedy movies coming. i never thought movies could get anymore retarded. if they keep it up they will have to rename the sci fie channel the comedy sci fi channel or something like that. i cant wait 4 the next blockbuster movie from sci fi. ill be ready with a bowl of popcorn and a case of beer or a bottle of liquor and ill be ready to laugh it up again. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"if you read my review of syfy dinoshark and you know that i can appreciate the low budget schlock that these made for television movies can provide. theyre stupid. theyre silly. but theyre still pretty fun in a so bad and it good kind of way. so and still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey dinoshark and i sat down to watch hammerhead represent shark frenzy and a syfy original movie about a half man and half hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. with the syfy channel sure fire recipe for creating b movie creature features and a cast that includes william forsythe and hunter tylo and how could it possibly go wrong. well and to my surprise and it actually misses the mark. not by much and but enough to make me not recommend it. why. well and first of all and its titular monster and the dreaded hammerhead human hybrid and takes a backseat to a bunch of faux military thugs who really become the movie primary villain. though the hammerhead does rack up the body count and he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. the rest of the movie is filler and pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. that and to me and is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people. please read the full review on my blog represent www. horrormoviejournal. blogspot. com. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"jeffrey combs is an insane scientist whose stem cell research has morphed into a diabolical scheme to create a hybrid hammerhead shark humanoid life form and hoping to breed a brand new species using hunter tylo womb. it would not be easy for tylo is a tough broad and her boyfriend and william forsythe and isn not about to give her up without a fight. you see tylo and forsythe are two of business executive arthur roberts employees and brilliant minds who meet combs(. a scientist who once worked for roberts and and whose vacated position went to tylo)at his island fortress where he conducts his research and experiments. this island affords him the opportunity to recruit fresh victims for his work and son. they think it a professional affair in regards to a breakthrough in stem cell research which could lead to cures for a variety of diseases. combs son was dying of kidney cancer when he decided to perform his mad science on him and creating this blood thirsty and flesh eating creature which can both swim and walk on dry land(. although and at first the hammerhead could only remain outside for short time periods). tylo was dating combs son and hence the connection besides the two having worked for roberts and who brings along his trophy wife and mariya ignatova. also accompanying tylo and forsythe and roberts and ignatova and are their colleagues and elise muller and gr johnson. combs traps them in a conference room and but they are able to escape onto the island as he sends after them his well paid mercenaries and hammerhead shark son. like similar sci fi channel creature features of it type and hammerhead representshark frenzy has some rather unappealing computer generated effects and the attacks(. where the shark rips apart limbs)are shot in a quick edit and frenzied camera format where you have a hard time ever seeing any of the ensuing gory carnage. you have this vague notion that a person is being eaten(. ripped to shreds) and but the attacks themselves are shot in a very erratic fashion which and truth be told and is rather infuriating. the monster itself is never seen in it entirety and just momentary glimpses of an eye or a body part being gnawed on as the victim screams out in horror. one thing for certain and you do see teeth. we do get cgi shots of the hammerhead shark swimming toward the screen and all menacing and ready to feast on flesh. a constant is while(. and after)victims are attacked and we see a great deal of blood and bits of flesh bubbling to the water surface(. this is really director michael oblowitz main cue as to inform the viewer that those being torn apart are goners). combs doesn not break new ground as the scientist and but he always had an ability to convey a quiet madness under this cold blooded resolve. it fun seeing forsythe in a rare clean cut hero role and very against type as an electronics wiz(. to his credit and he actually pulls it off)who must assume a leadership position when the group faces unprecedented peril. tylo is also in a very different kind of role and a scientist who can defend herself quite well. roberts can play the millionaire businessman roles in his sleep and and it kind of neat seeing him firing off a machine gun at combs soldiers(. although and his fate is not pleasant). mentioning that and it was also really entertaining watching forythe and tylo downing combs hired goons with confiscated automatic machine guns. as expected and the screenplay allows those who created the murderous fiend to put themselves in unnecessary danger just so that they can pay for their sins. i mean and seriously and would these people knowingly leave themselves so vulnerable to attack after seeing just what damage to the human anatomy it could do. beautiful exotic setting is quite a nice backdrop. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"hammerhead is a combination between the mad scientist and killer shark movie genres. in a bit of type casting and jeffrey combs plays the aforementioned mad scientist who develops a human or hammerhead shark creature. bizarrely and this being is in fact his son and who he has turned into this monster to prevent him dying from cancer. or something. a group of associates are invited to the scientist private island. they end up being used as shark bait or shark mate. for some unknown reason the head of it has been brought along as part of this team. who knows why. luckily and he turns out to be a resourceful and if somewhat overweight and ramboesque hero. i am working on the assumption that he learnt how to handle an assault rifle as part of his day job working in 1st line support. a normal day for this it man presumably involves fixing someone network connection followed by a call to gun down gun toting evil doers. or perhaps a call to fix someone pc has to be scheduled between physical confrontations with land based human shark hybrids. anyway and he amazing and saves the day. he even get the girl. the shark man is a slightly lame creation but ok and i guess and judging by the effects in general in this film. and the movie moves on at a decent pace. it complete hokum of course but if you buy a movie called hammerhead and expect it to be a complex drama about the emotional conflicts experienced by a man turned into a land based killer fish and then really you have no one to blame but yourself. as it is and there are guns and gore and girls and possibly even an exploding helicopter. it rubbish but not as bad as some might say. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 scientist on an island is in deep sorrow about the loss of his son who died of kidney cancer. so he thinks represent why not turn my dead son into a hammerhead shark. well and who do not. it a little hard to cope with the fact that the hammerhead shark that killing everybody is constantly being called paul. also and william forsythe cast as a macgyver kick ass savingtheday kinda hero lacks credibility. on the other hand there are a few hot chicks who make you actually look at the screen while shark paul bites another one to death. as a matter of fact i find bad b movies quite amusing. but for my taste it would have been a much better movie if it was made for say 1000000 bucks less. then it might have been 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:
"this type of plot really does have a lot of potential and but it was butchered here. honestly and i sensed the cheese element in the beginning and but i thought it would get better after the grotesque birthing. whoa and i was wrong. so mad scientist makes a monster and wants to brag to his old cronies before he kills them and but of course they escape. after that and it really bad. i should have counted the times the rubber shark mask peeked out from behind some foliage and but i most likely would have lost count. pan down to the blood dripping from severed leg to show us how the shark man finds the folks. i hate being spoon fed every aspect of a horror film. oh and and after being nearly killed by a mutated shark man and trudging around a jungle esqe island and there nothing more cheerful than a middle aged man reciting shakespeare. this is one where you will find yourself rooting for the monster. if you can bear to watch this poor excuse for a flick. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i love sharks. and mutants. and explosions. theoretically and with those parameters in mind and hammerhead represent shark frenzy should have been the best movie ever. it is not. the monster looks like a villain from power rangers and and has approximately the same range of rubbery movement. this might be okay if the makers weren not quite as proud of its design as they seem to be. that is to say and for a guy in a big rubber suit in an action or scifi or horror flick that could benefit from some mystery and the shark gets a lot of screen time. granted and it is usually shaky and erratic. i guess youre supposed to assume that it so scary that even the camera guy freaks out. the camera goes to a person about to get eaten and the camera goes to the shark. the camera goes back to the person about to get eaten and only now they are screaming and armless. and so on. the costuming is bad and the acting is poor and and the special effects are sub par and but the writing is by far the worst. things happen completely randomly so that more people can be eaten and or so something can explode. because let me tell you and the people who made this movie definitely went in with a more explosions equals more better mindset. characters shoot cars and there is a massive explosion. they shoot helicopters and there is a massive explosion. barrels and rocks and trees and whatever and they all explode and so much so that the freaking shark even explodes at the end. speaking of which and i do not care how crazy a person is and i find it hard to believe that anyone would think trying to make a giant half person half shark have sex with a woman in order to make freaky shark people babies is a good idea. that is and unless that person is the mad scientist in this movie. the bad thing is and the movie is so random (and at times and boring) that even its badness is not really enough to hold a person prolonged interest. it might be a good one to mst3k with your friends and but past that and if you happen to catch this bad boy on and do yourself a favor and change the channel. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"note to all mad scientists everywhere represent if youre going to turn your son into a genetically mutated monster and you need to give him a scarier name than paul. i do not care if he a frightening hammerhead shark with a mouthful of dagger sharp teeth and the ability to ambush people in the water as well as on dry land. give the kid a more worthy name like and thor and rock and or tiburon. because even if he eats me up i will probably just sit there laughing and ha. get a load of this. paul the monster is ripping me to shreds. that the worst part about this movie is and this shark thing is referred to as paul throughout the entire flick. it makes what could have been a decent and scary horror movie just seem silly. not that there aren not other campy and contrived parts of hammerhead represent shark frenzy. the scientists spend the entire movie wandering along this island and and all of a sudden one of the girls starts itching madly from walking in the lush forest and and just has to pour water on her feet to relive the itching and which of course allows paul to come out of the water and kill her. the one thing scifi channel did right in this movie was let the hottie live. but that a small silver lining in an otherwise disappointing movie. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie makes me think the others i have seen with combs were an accident. the plot had more holes than i think i have ever seen in a movie purporting to be something more than a b movie. the acting was so laughable that not even the memories of combs past campy triumphs were enough to save it. considering the script i have to imagine that there was not enough money in the budget for things like continuity and original ideas. i am thoroughly upset that i paid blockbuster prices for this trash. the fact that it was made for television was something that would have helped me avoid this atrocity and frankly something that movies this poor should be required to warn you of. avoid this movie no matter 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:
"horror or sci fi that is interesting as it is laughable. f or x pretty good. for what you manage to see. a made for tv thriller that is not as bad as the worst of them. jeffrey coombs plays a brilliant although misguided scientist that tampers with stem cell research and manipulates human dna with that of a hammerhead shark. the horrifying results give birth to one hell of a killing machine. a group of scientists led by william forsythe and hunter tylo are invited to a remote island to check out the brilliant new experiment. of course and after laughing and stammering in awe. coombs creation and by the way is his own son fused with a hammerhead and is let loose to hunt down one by one his father colleagues. revenge is not always rewarding. also in the cast represent elsie muller and g. r. johnson and arthur roberts and velizar binev. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i love bad shark movies. i really do. i laugh hysterically at them. and the scifi channel was having a marathon of them and culminating in the premier of their new original picture and hammerhead represent shark frenzy. based on the previews and it looked like it was going to be highly amusing. essentially a remake of benchley creature and really. it was prefaced by a showing of shark attack 3 represent megalodon and which is shark movie hilarity at its best. i was in the mood while i was ready to go. bring it on and hammerhead mad scientist man. oh and god and was that movie wrong. wrong and wrong and wrong. sick. twisted. messed up. this is theoretical reproduction at its very worst and my friends. when a drugged out girl is brought out of suspended animation and strapped to a table screaming her head off because the shark human hybrid fetus the absolutely insane scientist deliberately implanted in her womb wants out. jesus monkeys. that what i call disturbing. that really how the plot works represent hmmm and thought the mad scientist. my son died of cancer and but i brought him back to life by combining his dna with that of a hammerhead shark and because sharks do not succumb to cancer and further hammerheads reproduce via placenta. oh and look. a perfect amphibious being. i have created the next evolution of the human race. i know. let make him reproduce. but darned if all those shark genes havet made my son bloodthirsty while instead of raping the hot babes i keep sending into his little jungle paradise and he keeps eating him. but check this out. among the random people who have and by way of some unimportant plot twist and ended up on my research island and is the woman to whom my son was engaged before he died. i bet he will do her. all this leads up to an extremely touching and heartfelt reunion represent woman represent youre going to impregnate me. mad scientist represent no. he is. (indicates thrashing shark person in tank) how sweet. do not watch this movie. ever. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i caught sorrows lost at the new york film and video festival and i guess i had some high hopes for this film. sadly and this is just another visual fx calling card. the story is pretty lame. the bad lighting and camera work and along with the less than great editing and music all make the film seem low quality. is it really too much to ask that fx shorts have better stories and have the rest of the technical production be on par with the fx. you can not just get away with cool fx in shorts anymore and it been 5 years since 405 made a big splash. at least that short quick and cool and was even a little funny. none of that can be said about sorrows lost. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 scientist and his girl friend are out driving when his speeding causes a car crash. he escapes unharmed but she is decapitated. he saves her head and brings it to his house and keeps it alive (. ). he then proceeds to search out models and strippers for the perfect body for the head. his crippled assistant watches over the head which starts talking and has a telepathic (or telepathetic) link to a deformed monster kept in the closet. as you can see and this is pretty stupid stuff and but i had a certain fondness for it. when i grew up in the late 1970s and a local tv station showed this movie about 20 times each year (no exaggeration). they showed it always on saturday afternoon tv uncut. seeing this on tv back then was great. explicit blood and gore along with a gruesome monster and sleazy sexploitation who cares if it was good. seeing it now i realize how lousy this really is. the acting is perfectly wretched and the production values are nonexistent and the script is pretty dumb and (aside from the still pretty disgusting gore) this is dull stuff. there also a mild cat fight between two women and the admittedly great monster at the end. also add in an ending which leaves tons of loose ends. on one hand this is an interesting example of a 1960s exploitation film. on the other its utter trash. either way and it not a good movie but is a must see (for one time only) for horror and gore fans. also the head laugh is pretty creepy. note the end credits which gets the title wrong (calling it the head that wouldn not die). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 one hearkens back to the days of the matinée and when kids with nowhere else to hang out took their dates to the balcony after dumping their younger siblings below. it do not matter what was on the screen the little kids would sit through it and the big kids would ignore it. the adults and of course and would never see it. but they put it on video and anyway and along with most of the other creaky and low budget b horror flicks of the golden age. of television. this film inherent and unintentional humor is derived from stale ideology (the bad girls harvested to replace poor jan crushed body they had it comin) and overused plot (a mad scientist and trying to play god) and violent yet conscientious monster (whose presence in the heretofore normal seeming scientist rural lab is never fully explained) and and acting that polarizes at wooden or over the top. this is a great party film and assuming your guests enjoy adding dialog and commentary to otherwise abominable cinematic exploits. in fact and should you or your guests prefer more passive entertainment and this film is also available on video in its mystery science theater 3000 treatment and in which the host and puppets of the cult tv series make the necessary additions for 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:
"the brain (or head) that wouldn not die is one of the more thoughtful low budget exploitation films of the early 1960s. it is very difficult to imagine how a script this repulsively sexist could have been written without the intention of self parody. and the themes that are expressed repeatedly by the female lead and ginny leith a detached head kept alive by machines and i vs and clamps seem to confirm that the film was meant to simultaneously exploit and critique gender stereotypes. shades of the under rated boxing helena. the genderisms are plentiful and and about as irritating as an army of angry ants. the dialog is hyperbolic and over dramatic and unbelievable and and the acting is merely ok (but not consistent). why have i given this film a 4. because some thought clearly went into it. i am really not sure what point the film was really trying to make and but it seems clear that it strives for an unusually edgy and raw sort of horror (without the blood and guts today audiences expect). another unique and interesting aspect of the brain is that there really are not any heroes in this film and and none of the characters are particularly likable. all considered and this is a fairly painful and disturbing look at early 1960s american pop sexuality and from the viewpoint of a woman kept alive despite her missing body after what should have been a fatal car crash. her lover is threatening to sew a fresh and high quality and body onto her and force her to continue living with him. she is understandably non plussed by all of this and forced to befriend a creature who is almost as monstrous as her boyfriend. oh and there are also some vague references to the 1950s/60s cliché about the evils of science run amok. recommended for b sci fi buffs and graduate students in gender studies. o or w not recommended. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the brain that wouldn not die is one awful piece of film that stinks from the opening credits. it got all the classic signs of being bad represent unbelieveable plotline and terrible acting and low grade sets and lighting. the plotline goes like this represent when a doctor and his fiancee get caught in an accident and she gets decapitated and he picks up her head and takes her to his lab and where he sets up her head in a pan with some special liquid that keeps it alive. i will bet virgnina leath and who played the head in a pan had to spend a lot of uncomfortable time wearing that pan around her neck and squatting under a table. anyway and the doctor then tries to find her a new body and and hires two strippers so she can chose one to have her new body. bad all the way through and so bad it was torn to pieces on mystery science theater 3000. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"neat premise. very unrealistic. what i learned from this movie is that speeding crazily out of control to go to the weekend cabin may not be the best idea after all. i loved how bill conveniently rolls out of the car and down the hill with no injury at all. unfortunately and the same can not be said for his gal. oh and and the police never seemed to find the car or trace the owner of the wreck. lots of dragged out scenes including a plain stripper (still have nightmares from that scene). poor assistant guy and his crummy useless hand. i admit i was intrigued to see what the mysterious thing was behind the door and but when it appeared and i just laughed. ha ha ha. the girl really seemed sadistically angry about being revived. personally and i really would want a new body after an excruciating experience like that. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"a demented scientist girlfriend is decapitated so he brings her head back to life. honest this is the plot of the movie. he try to get her another body he searches through the sleaze area of town for that perfect body. for some reason he has ugly looking monster in a closet at his cabin. the sleaze style of the movie is laughable. no one in the movie can actually act including the head. the closet monster is a man with a mask tie on and you can really tell. the plot is slow and weak and the ending is so badly done. watch the mystery science theater 3000 version of this move. believe me folks i do not watch this movie on its own. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"another movie that relies upon the trite and worn out cliché of the mad scientist gone madder. the movie centers around a surgeon whose life ambition is to bring the dead. back to life. i know and i know. you have never heard that one before. of course and as all of these movies go and the experiment goes very and very wrong and creates a maniacal and bloodthirsty creature. for this promising setup and you would think that it would be at least a bit suspenseful. wrong. like many movies of this era and the idea is nice and but the execution and the script is mediocre. not the worst horror movie i have seen (no and abominator represent the evilmaker 2 still takes the cake). but not one of the gems and either. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 doctor who is trying to complete the medical dream of transplantation is experimenting secretly on corpses from the hospital with varying success. his final best chance comes when he lovingly wraps his girlfriend head in his jacket as he rescues it from a burning vehicle. i was looking for cheese and with this premise i believed i found it. it has everything everything that bad movie hunters look for chest and brain surgery with the surgeons leaving with pristine white scrubs and unique camera angles (i always love watching the rear passenger wheels of cars) and cheesy clarinet stripper music and and one of the longest death scenes in movie history. but unfortunately these so bad they are good moments can not overcome the too bad they stink stretches. jan in the pan annoyed me and with her droning monologues in a hoarse whisper and the somewhat less than evil laughter and and the fact she was kept alive with some columbian home brew coffee and 2 dd batteries. i couldn not even entertain myself with dr bill horrid overacting and moral self righteousness. usually such ham makes these movies a must see in my opinion and in this case i was bored with it. the best part of the movie in my opinion was the 1960 version of body shopping and i even found myself nodding off during that. don not spend money on this one there are better bad movies out there to entertain your sick sense of humor. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"possible spoilers ahead jason (a. k. a. herb) evers is a brilliant brain surgeon who and along with wife virginia leith and is involved in the most lackluster onscreen car crash ever. leith is decapitated and the doctor takes her severed noggin back to his mansion and rejuvenates the head in his lab. the mansion exterior was allegedly filmed at tarrytown lyndhurst estate while the lab scenes were apparently shot in somebody basement. the bandaged head is kept alive on lab equipment that almost cheap looking enough for ed wood. some of the library music the movie high point later turned up in andy milligan the body beneath. leith head has some heavy metaphysical discourses with another of ever misfires and a mutant chained in the closet. meanwhile and the good doc prowls strip joints looking for a body worthy of his wife gabby noodle. the ending and in uncut prints and features some ahead of its time splatter and dismemberment when the zucchini headed monster comes out of the closet to bring the movie to a welcome close. this thing took three years to be released and then and audiences gave it the bad reception it richly deserved. between this and plan 9 from outer space and a few others and 1959 should have been declared the year of the turkey. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 tells the tender tale of a demented scientist who and after his fiance is decapitated and goes around ogling strippers so that he can find a suitable body to attach her noggin to. everyone in this movie exudes more slime than a snail and particularly our protagonist. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"following a car accident and a mad scientist(jason evers) keeps the head of his fiancee(virgina leith)alive. he then goes on the prowl looking for the perfect body to make her whole again. pretty lame all the way around and nothing redeeming here. also in the cast are represent leslie daniels and bonnie sharie and bruce brighton. someone should have helped put this one out of its misery. let it die. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 bought this film on dvd so i could get an episode of mystery science theater 3000. thankfully and mike and crow and and tom servo are watchable and because the film itself is not. although there is a plot and a story one can follow and and a few actors that can act and there isn not anything else. the movie was so boring and i have firmly confirmed that i will never watch it again without tom and crow and mike. as summarized above and however and it was better than the film featured in the mst3k episode that preceded it while mitchell. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
". but it will make you wonder if we had any in the first place. this movie is just as bad as any of today horrible horror. a man goes around ogling semi clad ladies and trying to decide which one to kill so he can give his girlfriend a new body. one scene involves a man staggering around and spurting all over the set for a full three minutes and coating everything what what must be well over ten gallons of blood. the movie also attempts to create a sense that what the man is doing to his girlfriend is wrong and against nature and but the movie is so badly done it impossible for the audience to dredge up any feeling of shock or outrage. aimlessly dark and unimpressively sinister and this movie can not even get its own title straight the beginning credits say the brain that wouldn not die and but the end credits list it as the head that wouldn not die. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
". or an audience. a quick recap. so you have got this doctor who been experimenting with stolen body parts for some vague reason. he wants to perfect transplants and but feels he needs to do this in his basement. wtf. and then suddenly and unfortunately and and conveniently and his fiancé gets her head cut off in a traffic accident that hes responsible for. agonized with grief and he preserves her head in a lasagna pan (or is it strudel. ) and pumps it full of adreno serum (sic) to keep it alive. and then she awakes and talking her head off (so to speak) even though her neck was obviously severed at the vocal cords and and she has no lungs so she couldn not speak even if she had em. seems the ungrateful btch doesn not appreciate all that her fiancé has done for her. just like a woman. then his grief turns to horniness as he sees the possibility of grafting his beloved head onto the body of the first sleazy bimbo he can pick up off the street. meanwhile and the doctor assistant and a sort of dime store igor and gets into philosophical arguments with the head and who has struck up a telekinetic friendship with the monster in the closet (every mad scientist has one). eventually the screenwriter realizes that he can not keep inflicting his misogyny and fear of intimacy issues on the audience ad infinitum and so he kills everybody and then presumably goes to the bank to cash the check before the movie financial backers have a chance to stop payment on it. have i mentioned that i think this is a bad movie. someone should tell turner classic movies to stop showing that edited version without the gory stuff. the sight of the assistant with his arm ripped off and pirouetting around the house without leaving much blood anywhere is just too precious. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices. movie history represent the director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. when his wife discovered the film reels and he was forced to quickly contrive a story. he claimed he was making a movie called the brain that do not die. eventually and his wife demanded that he show her his so called movie. that night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and the brain that do not die was born. i hate this movie. plot synopsis represent the main character fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). he grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. after reanimating the head and he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. that is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. at the end and he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. the monster appears with little to no explanation. however and the monster saves a hooker and i assume that they live happily ever after. side notes represent the end credit screen claims that the movie is called the head that do not die. i hate this movie. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this film was really bad whether you take it as a sci fi movie and as a horror one or even as a comedy. the whole thing is ridiculous. the film looks (and is) definitely cheap and the actors have no idea of what acting is and the script shows clearly that it was being made along with the shooting. it is obvious that the monster in the closet was added because the living head was not scary at all she was even pretty and they thought they needed something more impressive while they failed here too (the make up is awful even for the late 50 and rather funny). the film shows clearly why director joseph green career as such and also as a writer never materialized while he was really bad at both. same goes to the actors and leading and supporting. the brain that wouldn not die best achievement is its short running time. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i bought this dvd for $1 at walmart. after seeing it and i might just return to the store and try to get my money back. the only reason i gave the movie a 2 and not a 1 is that the story has a few novel story elements and though it really never rises to the level of being interesting. this film has all the earmarks of being a made for the drive in theaters market ultra low budget and amateurish acting and a liberal dose of sex (for an early 60s film). in fact and i wonder if perhaps the only reason the film was made was to make a fast buck and because someone knew some strippers they could use as extras. the film is about a wacko doctor who wants to transplant his girlfriend severed head onto the body of an unsuspecting donor. most of the potential donors are skanky strippers or a model whose only real purpose in the film is to titillate as they remove most of their clothes. however and they keep too much on to make the movie even worth watching for the naughty bits and the film isn not quite awful enough to merit watching by bad film buffs. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 thinking that it would be one of those old b movies that are fun to watch. i was so wrong. this movie was boring and obviously aimed at males who like looking at corpulent women. the story was so ridiculous and implausible that it lost my interest altogether. it seemed to be in the same genre as the ed wood films bottom of the barrel. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"where to begin and there so much wrong and horrible about this movie i am not sure where to start. okay and the two stooges who wrote this crapper. joseph green and rex carlton and first they couldn not make up their so called minds for a name. my guess they split the difference and that why the main title is brain that wouldnt die and but the end screen says head that wouldnt die. neither one knows anything about the medical profession. after all doctors take oaths to do no harm. killing a woman for a head transplant would be considered harm. plus and a little thing called blood and tissue matching. rejection would spell death for jan in the pan. plus who keeps a patch work monster. what medical school did bill graduate from and frankenstien university. old fu and or mad scientist tech. the monster had no name and that bugs the hell out of me. plus and the brilliant surgeon doctor bill cortner doesn not know how to keep a patient sedated. all and all a disaster of a movie and it incredibly stupid and unwatchable and except on mst3k. i give it the thanksgiving turkey. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if 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.