prompt
stringlengths 497
14.4k
| chosen
int64 0
1
| rejected
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"maiden voyage is just that. i would like to say straight away that i watched 5mins of this before i just couldn not stand it anymore. as already stated in another comment and this film doesn not fall into the whole so bad it good thing and it just bad. the acting is awful and the sfx are poor and and the story is bland and stupid. even the extras suck and the bag guy guards and such appear to hold their weapons like water pistols. don not even bother watching this film and the only thing special about it is that and no matter how low your expectations are and you will still be 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:
"what a sad sight these tv stalwarts make and running out the clock on their careers stumbling about a little rusting hulk of a ship boat might be more appropriate. the whole production feels cheap and shabby and and it not helped by a big name star who is barely capable of spitting out the few lines that he given in a credible fashion. at no time do the supporting cast rise above the material while theyre clearly watching the clock here. bang out the scenes and get the pay cheque and go home and and try to forget all about it. it not particularly badly scripted or filmed while there are no real clangers and it just utterly anodyne and and shot in a very limited number of cramped sets with a small cast of extras. the pacing is a little bizarre while an embarrassingly tentative romantic sub plot is only begun after the main action starts and which makes it feel irrelevant. maiden voyage scores a couple of points for being competently scored and and for being a fun game of spot the kiwi bit parters while most of the cast are graduates of shortland street or xena represent warrior princess. the saddest thing about this production is that this film probably constitutes their big break. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"star rating represent saturday night friday night friday morning sunday night monday morning mcbain (played by gary busey and before the name became synonymous with the character in the simpsons) is a (typically) unorthodox cop who gets results but winds his superiors up something rotten. avoiding the cliché of his partner being killed at the beginning of the film and the plot instead takes a different turn and sees him assigned to travel to mexico where a top secret american super tank with incredible firepower and imaging capabilities has been smuggled through and only to be taken hostage and along with the crew and by a gang of terrorists. this cheap looking (even by 80s standards) and boring little action film was a bizarre career move for gary busey after making an impression as the flame haired villain mr joshua in lethal weapon. he just goes through the motions with his cardboard character here and edgy and zany as ever (with butthorn being his trademark put down for the bad guys) and but without the material to back him up. henry silva has presence as a screen villain and but he totally miscast here as an arab leader (in a red beret. ) and the awful script gives him some really clunky lines of dull dialogue that make his performance come off as laughably wooden. he just one of a host of action film character actors and including l. q. jones and lincoln kilpatrick and who pop up but fail to add anything to the mix. after a dull first half without much exciting action and things do pick up a bit at the end and but it too little too late and none of it manages the task of being any 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:
"what an incomprehensible mess of a movie. something about a cop who extracts bullets from himself after he gets shot and keeps them in a glass jar in his bathroom (and from the size of the jar he been shot about fifty times by now) and a top secret tank guarded by five or six incompetent soldiers who for some reason drive it into mexico. whether they were sent there intentionally or just got really really lost is never made clear. and you will never hear another screenplay feature the word butthorn either. gary busey tries out the mel gibson role from lethal weapon and while busey is a serviceable actor the screenplay damns the whole movie to mediocrity. william smith does another turn as a russian soldier and the same character he played in red dawn a few years earlier. after playing biker heavies for most of the 70s it was sort of nice to see him expand his range playing communist heavies. sadly he will probably always be remembered best as the guy who clint eastwood whupped in every which way you can. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"take rambo and mix in some miami vice and slice the budget about 80% and and you have got something that a few ten year old boys could come up with if they have a big enough backyard and too much access to penthouse. cop and ex commando mcbain (busey and and with a name like mcbain and you know he as gritty as they come) is recruited to retrieve an american supertank that has been stolen and hidden in mexico. captured with the tank were hardbitten sgt. major orourke (jones) and mcbain former love devon (fluegel) and the officer in command and now meat for the depraved terrorists or spies or drug peddlers and who have no sense of decency and blah and blah and blah. for an action movie with depraved sex and there a dearth of action and not much sex. the running joke is that mcbain gets shot all the time and survives and keeping the bullets as souvenirs. apparently the writers do not see the magnificent seven (the man for us is the one who gave him that face) and nor thought to give mcbain even a pretense of intelligence. even for a budget actioner and the production values are poor and with distant shots during dialog and very little movement. the main prop and the tank and is silly enough for an ed wood production. fluegel and who might have been a blonde julia roberts (she had a far bigger role in crime story than julia. ) has to go from simpering to frightened to butt kicking and back again on an instant notice. jones and who been in an amazing array of films and pretty much hits bottom right here. both he and busey were probably just out for some easy money and a couple of laughs. look for talented and future character actor danny trejo (heat and once upon a time in mexico) in a stereotyped and menacing bit part. much too dull even for a guilty pleasure and bulletproof is still noisy enough to play when you leave your house but want people to think there someone home. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 happens when an army of wetbacks and towelheads and and godless eastern european commies gather their forces south of the border. gary busey kicks their butts and of course. another laughable example of reagan era cultural fallout and bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by l q jones and thalmus rasulala. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"there is only one use for a film such as bulletproof represent it reminds you just how bad bad can be. we often see films which we describe as pretty awful or not much good and but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren not good they are no way as stinkingly bad as bulletproof. this was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru the dvd bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i. e. to give me a present). it could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn not represent this is so utterly clichéd and so badly written and so poorly directed and so badly acted that i am surprised everyone involved hasn not been arrested and sent down for 10 years. god and it awful. i suspected as much from about 30 seconds in and but carried on because sometimes sometimes bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. this isn not one of them. it is simply bad. i stopped watching after 45 minutes and and tomorrow i shall throw it in the 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 still can not believe that wes craven was responsible for this piece of crap. this movie is worse than deadly friend. the plot is stupid and the acting is mediocre and the film is deadly dull. i do not know why wes craven hates his debut last house on the left an absolute masterpiece of the genre and likes(probably)this turkey. don not get me wrong and i really like some of his movies and but it was a real torture sitting and watching this. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"unspeakably discombobulated turkey and a mix of anti nazi musical (. ) and pre war americana and agatha christie whodunit spoof with one big and big problem represent it deadly unfunny. besides the single digit i. q. plot and dialog and the most amazing aspect of lady. is the berserk casting. gene wilder (star and co writer) tries hard at it all represent he plays a romantic lead (with his looks. and his age. he and woody allen should start a club for clueless and mirrorless ageing comedians) and and he tries to be moving and funny and poignant and smart and and tries to sing and dance and and succeeds in none. a looong shot from his good old days with mel brooks. for a while i thought i was having a myopia fit and because everybody in the movie keeps saying cherry jones is this pretty hot chick and and that michael cumpsty is this impossibly handsome stallion. the guy who plays claire bloom male secretary is a bespectacled balding thin actor as sexy as a chair and is the object of passion of the two leading ladies. mike starr over the top acting as the most incompetent and phoniest cop you ever saw deserves to rank among the 10 most abhorrent performances in recent film history. the saddest note is to see wonderful claire bloom and barbara sukowa completely miscast and offensively wasted. at least i hope both stars payed their bills back home (and subsequently fired their agents) with this flop. no wonder acting prodigy sukowa returned to germany after she saw what hollywood had in store for her. if you want to see how to accomplish a really bad film out of a really bad script with a berserk casting director and study this one otherwise stay away. 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:
"(spoilers galore) this is an absolutely awful film. first of all it has that guy from medium. i guess he made a career out of playing super doting dads. it was ok the first time he tried to scare his son by pretending to be a monster. but then 10 minutes later they cloyingly did it again. and so it goes and this film moves in excruciating real time. at one point and i started imaging it was days later and until i was reminded that the story line was only at the next day. in the early afternoon still. i am not really sure who this couple is supposed to be in real life. first of all they are presented as sort of a manhattan yuppie couple who grew up and had a kid. but they drive an old blue volvo. those types stopped driving volvos decades ago. today they drive priuses. but in 2002 and i am sure they still weren not driving volvos. ok and then there wendigo. a mysterious indian man gives the boy a little magic wendigo statue and tells him of its powerful magic. c amon. are we still doing ancient indian mysteries. just to drive it home and they pan across every indian statue in their tourist trap upstate new york town. american indians are portrayed in a manner not seen for decades in this film. oh and and about wendigo. he is not actually the cause of the horror. he doesn not kill the kid dad which is the most horrible thing in the film. he just killed by an ordinary hick with a grudge and a high powered rifle. the wendigo only comes out late in the film to avenge the guy who killed the dad. oh and but wait and it seemed earlier that wendigo was kind of mad at the dad and maybe because he killed a deer. so then wendigo must have been happy that the dad was killed. but. and so it goes. insulting and boring and nonsensical. there is no reason to watch this film at all. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i had never heard of larry fessenden before but judging by this effort into writing and directing and he should keep his day job as a journeyman actor. like many others on here and i do not know how to categorize this film and it wasn not scary or spooky so can not be called a horror and the plot was so wafer thin it can not be a drama and there was no suspense so it can not be a thriller and its just a bad film that you should only see if you were a fan of the blair witch project. people who liked this film used words and like ambiguity and complex and subtle but they were reading into something that wasn not there. like the blair witch and people got scared because people assumed they should be scared and bought into some guff that it was terrifying. this movie actually started off well with the family meeting the locals after hitting a deer. it looked like being a modern day deliverance but then for the next 45 minutes and (well over half the film) and nothing happened and the family potted about their holiday home which was all very nice and dandy but not the slightest bit entertaining. it was obvious the locals would be involved in some way at some stage but essendon clearly has no idea how to build suspense in a movie. finally and when something does happen and its not even clear how the father was shot and how he dies and (the nurse said his liver was only grazed) and and all the time this wendigo spirit apparently tracks down the apparent shooter in a very clumsy way with 3rd grade special effects. the film is called wendigo but no attempt is made to explain it in any clear way and the film ends all muddled and leaves you very unsatisfied and i would have bailed out with 15 minutes to go but i wanted to see if this movie could redeem itself. it do not. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the opening scene of this film sets the pace for the entirety of its ninety minutes. the shots are generic and conventional and and of television movie quality. the snow drenched scenery is gorgeous and yet the characters held with in it have a similar quality to that of looking at a photograph of such scenery and the overwhelming feeling being that of distance. some of the editing is fairly high quality and the work of an veteran professional and the dialogue however is clunky and artificial and having little bearing on real conversations at all seemingly. any emotional insight is displaced in favour of swearing and which is of course the way in which everyone shows their true feelings. the action is slow and underwhelming and the overall feeling being one of someone trickling cold water over your head and but so slowly that you barely notice and yet eventually you feel pathetic and slightly sorry for yourself for being caught in such a incomprehensible situation. the mixture of genres that the fessenden has seemingly tried to use while psychological thriller and horror and family drama and although commendable suffers from a serious lack of tension and interesting dialogue. the way in which the husband and wife and child trio interact is particularly unrealistic. the themes of family relationships being played out in haunting setting have been covered countless times before by far superior films and an instant example being that of the shining (1980). the family unit here are torn by innocuous troubles which are hard to understand or sympathise with considering the relative ambiguity of the script. the family unit is hardly stalked throughout the film and fessenden playing down the thriller possibilities of the narrative in favour of a slow family drama for the majority of the running time. the talker figure otis has few apparent motives for his behaviour and despite being perhaps the most interesting and well acted character is still very underdeveloped. the main characters are empty husks of people who it was extremely hard to relate to and their relationships with each other being particularly void of any sentiment or feeling. although the ignorance of the erik per sullivan young character by his parents is presumably part of the story and surely any reasonable person would question their son if he allegedly spoke to someone who seemingly doesn not exist. people can accept this film as intelligent because of its relative lack of conventional aspects regarding creature based horror movies but this film fails in respect of whichever genre you wished to pigeonhole it in. you can read deep psychological meanings into every single minute detail of anything if you should so wish to but i think people would be better off over analysing their carpet for some deep emotional meaning and rather than these vacuous sub human creations. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 learned of the wendigo many years ago in one of alvin schwartz scary stories books represent according to that story and the wendigo after calling your name in the wind drags you along and and then pulls you up into the sky and pulverizes you. while it sounds like a pretty bizarre notion and schwartz story turned it into a fairly coherent idea. the movie wendigo doesn not. it basically consists of every horror flick cliché represent family moves to new house and strange things start happening and anyone who harms them is asking for it and and everyone had better listen to the old indian guy. i have seen this stuff so many times that i no longer bother to count. anyway and avoid it. patricia clarkson and erik per sullivan (dewey on malcolm in the middle) have done far better than this. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie is s l o w. spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to begin. the setting was bleak and the script was bleak and the cinematography was bleak and the plot was bleak and the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad and but this one had no redeeming features). the plot was more consumed with a vengeful and slightly deranged hunter than the actual wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. this in itself was disappointing as this wendigo was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. everything about the movie was uninspiring. the parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script i am not sure and but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels. there was no food for thought and nothing to pique an interest. with no real intrigue or chill factor and this movie creaked along so painfully and you just couldn not care less what happened by the end. wendigo ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of mr bean holiday represent a movie which is artistic and nonsensical and trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful and but coming across as pretentious and boring. i would never want to watch this again. i only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen . but it do not. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 know the real story of the wendigo and i suggest you pick up a copy of algernon blackwell original story. this movie was not only bad but had nothing to do with the book. i loved the book when i read it as a kid (in campfire chillers by e. m. freeman)and was so excited to see a movie based on it come out. i was so disappointed when i finally saw it. another thing is that there were too many pc (politically correct) undertones throughout the movie that had no place in the film. when the book was written pc do not even exist. my suggestion is do not waste your time or money. if you see it on the video store shelf leave it there. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"for all the subtle charms this student film may contain and was anyone else bored to death waiting wendingo to show his paper macho face. the anti climax pretty much ruined any sort of momentum we had speed actioned to develop. do not get me wrong and i am all into exploring america dark underbelly and but this is a turd a flambé that gets a nod to watchable only for the fact that p. clarkson looks hot taking it. sadly and from a guy from wings. the best 2 minutes the film has to offer. if you felt like ripping off deliverance and you could do better. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i was disappointed. the film was a bit predictable and did not live up to the hype plastered all over the box. having said that and the characters were well developed and the windego myth was used in a unique premise and the house was pretty spooky but it just missed for me. i kept waiting for that big ahhhhh or boo. but it never came. furthermore the movie was plagued with poor filming of poor special effects. thus showing to much of a bad thing and not using atmosphere and viewer imagination to create the horror and suspense. try movies like session 9 or the cube if your looking for a low budget but well conceived horror 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:
"as i was watching this movie i was thinking and ok it will get good any moment. i was wrong. the real best part of this movie was when it was over. a complete waste of 92 minutes. all seriousness aside the best part was when the wendigo finally showed up which was at the end and you couldn not really even see him that good. and the tail end was really kind of dumb as well. there was too many sections in the movie where you thought something was going to happen but was a let down. the worse part is there was more talk of the wendigo then there was wendigo. for the creature to be so bad and you definitely couldn not tell it by 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:
"if my grandma did films they would probably do much better figure than this one. incredible bad. the main characters (the mom and the dad and son) are ok. specially the mother she a nice actress and the kid also proves to be a nice one specially on the scenes where he is supposed to be scary. but does the the director know the meaning of the words plot point and triller and good script. the script hasn not any evolving atmosphere to become a suspense thing. if you like being chased by trees you can probably enjoy it and otherwise just stay at home and sleep. oh. actually there was something funny represent the movie from 2001 but we couldn not realize it since the image is so bad (like on mini dv) and the cars are so old (like 70 and 80 ). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"anyone who actually had the ability to sit through this movie and walk away feeling like it was a good film does not appreciate quality movies. this movie was an insult to watch and the direction was high school film class quality as well as the cinematography. the blair witch project had better cinematography and i hate that move with a passion. the storyline had the potential to be a very intense very good movie but it fell flat from the first 10 minutes through the rest of the movie. someone mentioned that this film was about a child imagination and okay thats all good and fine. but they still could have done better things with this script than what they did. i mean come on and the indian in the store. did the kid look at the little idol and suddenly imagine the indian and the entire story about an indian spirit called wendigo. which they mention to the store employee and she casually says there is no one but me that works here and so you think okay creepy ghost scenario and but then she just barters for the amount on the idol and we forget about the little kid seeing this guy. that was so lame it goes beyond pathetic. the ending left you wondering not only what happened to otis in the hospital but also with the feeling of omg. why the hell did i just waste my time watching this. this is a move that i recommend not to watch and there are definitely better quality films out there that would not insult your intelligence. thank god i never had to pay to see this movie and i would have demanded my money back. for those that were easily entertained by this movie. it very sad that you lowered your standards to this level of film making to actually say that it was a good movie. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i remember back when i was little when i was away at camp and we would campout under the stars. there was always someone there that would have a good story to tell that involved the woods that surrounded us and they would always creep me out. well and when i found wendigo at the library and i checked it out hoping to be one of those films that had a supernatural being haunting people in the woods much like the stories that were told at camp. well and much to my dismay and i was so far from the truth. wendigo is really bad. the story starts of when a family of three is driving to their winter cabin and which looks like your normal suburban home and nothing like a cabin in the woods and and they run into a deer. well and it seems the local rednecks were actually hunting this particular deer and are pretty upset at our city folk. the movie spends far too much time following the families everyday activities instead of getting to the point of the film. it wasn not until about the last 15 minutes that we actually have some action involving the wendigo. my suggestion is that you stay very far away this film. it will leave you wanting your hour and a half back. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have seen many horror shows over the years and like nightstalker and that dealt with the wendigo legend and so i was looking forward to an angry spirit causing mayhem to add flavor to the halloween season. man was i mistaken. the whole movie creates this sense of events about to happen that will be scary and creepy and but then delivers a very simplistic tale of revenge and murder over the loss of some property. ve ery scary not. this movie has a lot in common with cold creek manor and another total loser. it getting harder and harder to believe anything hollywood puts forward about scary movies and since they rarely come through with anything original and spooky anymore. what idiots pay for such a bogus movie to be made. go back to the drawing board fellas and and do something useful with those millions of greenbacks you have to throw around. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn not forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _angel_ and you will enjoy the film. me. all i wanted was a nice and tight little story and and it wasn not there. the pacing was practically backward and plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue and and there was absolutely no sense of dread and or tension and or anything. is it the redneck. is it the wendigo. no and it a cameraman on speed. that not scary. it doesn not generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless youre scared by mtv. like those reviewers before me and i too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience. terrible 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:
"this wasn not all that great. not terrible or hateful or anything and just forgettable. it had a sort of and um and hesitant and diluted air and like it never properly knew whether it wanted to go for laughs or for sweetness or for satire. so we were left with weak mix of the three. the actors seemed kinda lost. also and the ideas were really tired and recycled and almost zombified themselves. how many more times do we have to be told the 50 in the states were infected with a banal sense of conformity. and that this was perpetuated by aggressive consumerism. and that emotional repression in men is a baaaaad thing. old hat. its biggest crime in my eyes though was just how detached from reality it was. i know it was a comedy and all and but especially in a full movie where you must keep the interest of an audience for a prolonged period you still need some sort of emotional anchor and some relatable guide through the story and to make it engaging. for the hero kid to watch an old woman and two fellow school pupils and ultimately his father die painfully at the hands of zombies or whatever and for him to greet it all with a cheery smile and a shrug of the shoulders and then i just struggle to deal with that in any sort of positive way. the mum was the same. if you make your two main characters so inhuman on that level and then you risk losing me and that what happened. biggest positive i can offer is that i love the look of that sort of apple pie suburbia and this captured it well enough and it was a handsome film and especially some of those wide angled shots of the street and inside the robinsons house. also and the opening newsreel was cute and in a been done before but still funny sort of way. and i thought billy connolly was ok and that comes from someone who isn not a big fan of billy connolly represent movie star. i just had this fear he was going to be hamming it up and trying to steal every scene and but he played it pretty low key for him and probably came out the most sympathetic character in the whole film. all in all and not great though. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this movie gets both a positive rating from me and as well as a positive . here is why represent as a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd and where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration and this movie will bore you. it basically a family drama similar to what you would see on the lifetime channel and but put in a horror universe. the story and formula are age old and retreaded hundreds of times. if youre looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts and you will be disappointed. take away the zombies and you will have something just as melodramatic as a beautiful mind and tripping on cheese. this is the positive . however and the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over the top. it literally something you and your friends would joke about when youre half drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. the idea gets a positive from me. the only reason it isn not perfect is because they could have taken it even further and but they do not. the mix of both is mixed. i thought it was funny and but as with most all comedies and it wasn not that funny. i had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. there were moments of utter genius and but there were also moments of pure boredom. i sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over the top risk and original ideas. i just can not say it was perfect and or even near it and because of the lack of originality to the plot. a great family movie. a great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). a great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone and it will be a bit boring. other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer. 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:
"there been a vogue for the past few years for often as not ironic zombie related films and as well as other media incarnations of the flesh eating resurrected dead. fido is a film that either an attempt to cash in on that and simply a manifestation of it and or both and it falls squarely into the category of ironic zombies. the joke here is that we get to see the walking dead in the contrasting context of a broadly stereotyped and squeaky clean and alternate history (we are in the wake of a great zombie war and and the creatures are now being domesticated as slaves) version of a 1950s suburb. it a moderately funny concept on its own and and enough perhaps for a five minute comedy sketch and but it can not hold up a feature film on its own. the joke that rotting corpses for servants are incongruous with this idealized version of a small town is repeated over and over again and and loses all effectiveness. the soundtrack relentlessly plays sunny tunes while zombies cannibalize bystanders. the word zombie is constantly inserted into an otherwise familiarly homey line for a cheap attempt at a laugh. the very broadness and artificiality of the representation of the nineteen fifties here can not help but irritate me. it is so stylized and in it evidently pleasantville inspired way and that it is more apparent in waving markers of its 1950s ness around than actually bearing any resemblance to anything that might have happened between 1950 and 1959. there is something obnoxiously sneering about it and as if the film is bragging emptily and thoughtlessly about how more open and down to earth and and superior the 2000s are. because the characters are such broad representations of pop culture 1950s types and it difficult to develop much emotional investment in them. each has a few character traits thrown at him or her helen is obsessed with appearances and and bill loves golf and his haunted by having had to kill his father but they remain quite two dimensional. performances within the constraints of this bad writing are fine. the best is billy connolly as fido the zombie and who in the tradition of boris karloff in frankenstein actually imparts character and sympathy to a lumbering green monster who cannot speak. there are little bits of unsubtle allegory thrown around to commodity fetishism and racism and classism and war paranoia and et cetera and but none of it really works on a comprehensive level and and the filmmakers don while t really stick with anything. unfortunately and this film doesn not really get past sticking with the flimsy joke of look. zombies in leave it to beaver. for a good hour and a half. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this would be a watchable hollywood mediocre if it had a good editing. it relies on the typical american thriller plot who is going to outsmart everyone. acting is below average and but with shining appearance of the detective who is the best actor in the film and he is mostly responsible if the tension in the film rises. film was completely suffocated by blank video and sound shots and most of it looks like raw film material. all in all and if you do not mind watching a movie that looks like a student film project and this is a film to watch. i guess that would be enough to say on this film and everything else could really spoil the tension that is probably low 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:
"loved part one and the impossible planet and but whoops and what a disappointment part two the satan pit is. the cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was nothing coming out of the pit. then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story and the beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence and so no doctor or villain confrontation i would been anticipating. the tardis is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the tardis fell through the planet crust. and finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason i mean and why not plunge the beast into the hole as soon as the pit opened. why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. why not i could go on but i have lost interest. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i do not know how to describe this movie. it definitely one of the weirdest movies i have seen in a long time. it is very unsettling at times but also boring in other places. the scenes of dental torture are very elaborate and may attract anyone who into gore and splatter. i found myself holding my teeth during some of the aforementioned scenes. the clever thing about the movie is that it plays with our fears and the dentist is therefore quite unsettling. the humor of the film is somehow hidden and may not be recognized by everyone. but if youre a fan of weird and strange entertainment and teeth getting drilled to dust this is just the film you were looking for. if you read the comment and feel somehow attracted by this kind of entertainment and give it a try. my rating represent negative (maybe a little too weird for my taste). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 do like the gore in this movie it is genuingly unsetteling. anyone that been to the dentist will know why. the story really isn not that bad and corbin bersen character motivations do make a lot more sense than in most horror movies. i have seen worse acting and directing and script and etc. but at the end of the day this is still a bad horror movie. so it comes down to if you enjoy that type of thing or not. i tried to watch the sequel and but it was exactly and exactly the same thing as this movie. just keep in mind if you enjoy people getting tortured at the dentist and then this is the movie 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:
"there are probably more people afraid of the dentist than of and let say and little monsters or scary looking dolls. which makes it a perfect subject for a horror movie and really. dr. feinstone (corbin bernsen) has been a successful dentist for several years now and but when he catches his wife cheating on him with the poolguy he snaps and and he brings his anger and frustration to his work. well and give a mad dentist a drill and a mouth and and you can probably guess what happens next. as i said and brilliant idea but not delivered as well as it should. in particular the ending is a huge let down. last note represent watch for mark ruffalo (you can count on me and eternal sunshine. ) in this one. 5/10. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i really wanted to like this movie and but it never gave me a chance. it basically meant to be spinal tap with a hip hop theme and but it fails miserably. it consistently feels like it was written and acted by high school kids for some school project and and that also the level the humor seems to be aimed at. there is no subtlety and and more damningly for a mockumentary and it never once feels like a documentary. and while the lines aren not funny in the first place and an attempt at dead pan delivery would have helped certainly and anything would be better than the shrill overacting we are subjected to. i would recommend this to people who like comedies in the vein of big momma house or norbit while people who think that words like butt are inherently hysterically funny. other people should stay away and not waste their 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:
"obviously and i do not care for things to come (aka the shape of things to come) as much as most viewers. that means that there is a good chance that you will enjoy it more than i did. at any rate and you might find it useful to hear the film described from another point of view. directed by william cameron menzies and who had as much experience as a production designer and even more as an art director and this is a film adaptation by h. g. wells of his own novel by the same name. in my eyes and it helps demonstrate why a great novelist may not necessarily turn out to be a great screenwriter. the film opens in 1940 in a london like everytown. war is brewing and the citizens of everytown are worried that it might reach them. it does. and it turns into a decades long affair that basically destroys civilization. wells and menzies keep jumping forward in time to show us different scenes related to the war and its aftermath. we see two pilots and one downed and coming to terms with the consequences of their fighting. we meet a post apocalyptic community ruled over by a would be warlord. we meet a man from a burgeoning futuristic society. we see the way that technology is changing. and finally and were taken to the full realization of that futuristic society circa 2036 and where the leaders are debating the merits of sending man to the moon. that might all sound potentially very exciting and but it just does not work as a film. structurally and the film is far too episodic and with little to dramatically tie it together. by the third segment and i completely lost interest in trying to keep track of the characters. i had barely been able to sort them out in the first couple segments. there a constant parade of new faces. we do not get to learn anything about any of them. it doesn not help that the individual segments and with a couple exceptions and tend to be awkwardly directed and edited. they are also occasionally manipulative it can almost begin to feel like a propaganda film. but maybe contradictorily and the segments are also a bit cold and dry emotionally. in fact and one overlong section is more like a music video or industrial promotional video. if features shots of building the futuristic city and with lots of large machinery and lots of welding and and so on. at one point and a guy who looks like an astronaut waves at the camera through some kind of futuristic glass. the music for this section is somewhere between militaristic and an overblown horror score. i can not say that things to come consists of engaging material in terms of drama. but the common cry in support of things to come is that it is a film about ideas. that may be true and but there are a couple problems with it if looked at that way. one and it still doesn not make it work _as a film_ and that is and as a visual and aural dramatic artwork and and two and there are far too many ideas presented here. the principle idea is that of war and what it does to civilizations. that a fine thing to make a film about. it also remarkably prescient of world war ii and as the things to come was scripted and filmed in 1935 (released in 1936). wells has some interesting things to say about war and some of which go against the usual interpretation of the film. for example and the ending seems to suggest that another war is breaking out and or will at any moment. the overall message seems a trifle pessimistic. wells seems to be showing that war is simply a part of human nature that cannot be excised and although it doesn not preclude progress in fact and maybe it fuels progress and at least indirectly. that would certainly be enough for one film. however and there are many more ideas here. the scene between the two pilots is one of the more poignant scenes of the film. it deals with a complex dilemma. one pilot has shot the other down and but is now coming to assist him. but the pilot who was shot down was carrying a poisonous gas that is now billowing across the field. they can not both breathe the gas without harm. a girl comes along. they only have two functioning gas masks between them. the pilot who was shot down offers his mask and as he says he dying anyway. what to do. it not that this scene itself could be stretched out to feature length and but the ideas the bizarre complex of both helping and trying to hurt each other in the midst of a war are enough to build a film on. another example. during the scenes featuring the would be warlord and in the post apocalyptic environment and there is a nasty contagious disease called the wandering sickness going around. it turns victims into something like drunken zombies. the usual procedure is to shoot victims on site in an attempt to stave off the disease. this material is dealt with as if it were an afterthought. it a great idea and deserved its own film. similarly and wells presents the future society as having controversial socialist ideas. that was enough for its own film and too. it just impossible to effectively deal with so much stuff in 100 minutes and especially when it supposed to be the crux of the film in lieu of dramatic attraction. still and there are reasons to give things to come at least one viewing. if youre at all a sci fi buff and this is a historically important film. given menzies background and the production and set designs are interesting and even if the cinematography seems extremely dated. it also interesting to see how wells was either prescient or retrospectively humorous in his predictions. i particularly enjoyed the means of propulsion to the moon and which was strongly reminiscent of george méliès 1902 a trip to the moon (aka le voyage dans la lune). just do not expect too much from things to come. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 cant describe how terrible this movie is. am i the only one here who finds the way its animated totaly disgusting. the men of rohan look 100% fake with their poorly colored hair and that doesnt even come close to matching what the actors look like. the orcs looked terrible. why does gandalf walk with a bad limp. why cant they pronounce things correctly. saruman isnt aruman. there were other what sounded like terrible pronounciationsp of tolkiens characters. all and all im glad the studio who made this pulled the plug out from the sequal and it was just a terrible terrible adaptaion. go watch the hobbit cartoon for a better cartoon of tolkiens work. hell and even the cartoon version of rotk is better then this dribble. 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:
"some people do not like the animation. personally and i think the animation was quite remarkable given when this movie was done. there are lots of older cartoons that i just love. my problems with this movie are not the animation and but basically the way it was constructed. the characters are all just. well and goofy. and for this movie and they shouldn not be. apparently and everyone in lotr has a limping problem (for starters. ) just the way they acted in general annoyed me. my two sisters and i were laughing through most of this movie. i think that if many people had seen this before seeing the newer ones and they do not have gone. i am glad i rented this and do not buy it. there are few movies that give me a headache. this was one of them. however and this isn not the worst movie i have ever seen and although it ranks up there. or down there and depending on your view. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 during a tolkien themed interim class during my sophomore year of college. i was seated unfortunately close to the screen and my professor chose me to serve as a whipping boy everyone else was laughing and but they weren not within constant eyesight. let get it out of the way represent the peter jackson lord of the rings films do owe something to the bakshi film. in jackson version of the fellowship of the ring and for instance and the scene in which the black riders assault the empty inn beds is almost a complete carbon copy of the scene in bakshi film and shot by shot. you could call this plagiarism or homage and depending on your agenda. i am sure the similarities do not stop there. i am not going to do any research to find out what they are and because that would imply i have some mote of respect for this film. i am sure others have outlined the similarities look around. this movie is a complete train wreck in every sense of the metaphor and and many and many people died in the accident. i have decided to list what i can remember in a more or less chronological fashion if i have left out anything else that offended me it because i am completely overwhelmed and confronted with a wealth of failure (and and at high points and mediocrity). due to heavy use of rotoscoping and gandalf is no longer a gentle and wise wizard but a wildly flailing prophet of doom (whose hat inexplicably changes color once or twice during the course of the film). saruman the white is sometimes referred to as aruman during the film and without explanation. he wears purple and red for some mysterious reason. sam is flat out hideous. the portrayal of his friendship with frodo is strangely childlike and unsatisfying. yes and hobbits are small like children and but they are not children. merry and pippin are never introduced they simply appear during a scene change with a one sentence explanation. the film is filled with sloppy editing like this. frodo and sam and pippin and merry are singing merrily as they skip through along the road. one of the hobbits procures a lute at least twice as large as he is from behind his back which was not visible before and begins strumming in typical fantasy bard fashion as they all break into la la las. awful. aragorn and apparently and is a native american dressed in an extremely stereotypical fantasy tunic (no pants) and complete with huge and square pilgrim belt buckle. he is arguably the worst swordsman in the entire movie oftentimes he gets one wobbly swing in before being knocked flat on his ass. the black riders appear more like lepers than menacing instruments of evil. they limp everywhere they go at a painfully slow pace. this is disturbing to be sure and but not frightening. the scene before the black riders attempt to cross the ford of bruinen (in which they stare at frodo and who is on the other side on horseback) goes on forever and during which time the riders rear their horses in a vaguely threatening manner and. do nothing else. the scene was probably intended to illustrate frodo hallucinatory decline as he succumbs to his wound. it turns out to be more plodding than anything else. gimli the dwarf is just as tall as legolas the elf. he a dwarf. there is simply no excuse for that. he also looks like a bastardized david the gnome. it a crude but accurate description. boromir appears to have pilfered elmer fudd golden viking armor from that bugs bunny opera episode. he looks ridiculous. despite the similarity to tolkien illustration and the balrog is howl inducing and the least threatening villain in the entire film. it looks like someone wearing pink bedroom slippers and and it barely taller than gandalf. purists may prefer this balrog and but i will take jackson version any day. the battle scenes are awkward and embarrassing. almost none of the characters display any level of competency with their armaments. i am not asking for action packed scenes like those in jackson film and but they are supposed to be fighting. treebeard makes a very short appearance and and i was sorry he bothered to show up at all. watch the film and you will see what i mean. alright and now for the good parts of the film. some of the voice acting is pretty good. it isn not that aragorn sounds bad and he just looks kind of like the jolly green giant. galadriel is somewhat interesting in this portrayal while like tom bombadil and she seems immune to the ring powers of temptation and and her voice actress isn not horrible either. boromir death isn not as heart wrenching as in jackson portrayal of the same scene and but it still appropriately dramatic (and more true to his death in the book and though i do not believe jackson made a mistake shooting it the way he did). as my professor pointed out (between whispered threats) and the orcs (mainly at helm deep and if i am correct) resemble the war ravaged corpses of soldiers and a political statement that works pretty well if you realize what being attempted. while this isn not really a positive point about the film and bakshi can not be blamed for the majority of the failures in this movie and or so i have been told the project was on a tight budget and and late in its production he lost creative control to some of the higher ups (who i am sure hadn not read the books). let me be clear represent i respect bakshi for even attempting something of this magnitude. i simply have a hard time believing he was happy with the final product. overall and i cannot in any way recommend this blasphemous adaptation of tolkien classic trilogy even for laughs and unless you have already read the books and have your own visualizations of the characters and places and events. i am sure somebody and somewhere and will pick a copy of this up in confusion while if you do and keep an open mind and glean what good you can from it. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i remember going to see the movie in the summer of 78 with my parents and and being pretty into it at the time. of course and i was seven at the time. right before the jackson movies came out and my wife and i rented this movie since she had never seen it and i was feeling nostalgic. ralph bakshi ran out of money about mid way through the animation process for this movie and and was forced to drastically cut corners on this production. since this movie was done primarily with rotoscoping and the animation technique for people on a budget and this is saying something. much of this movie is animation only in the very loosest sense of the word. there are some scenes which are very obviously just people standing in front of a screen and with maybe some animation effects superimposed on top of them. because of budget constraints and the movie already a compression of the fellowship of the rings and part of the two towers was pared down even more. what you get is sort of like a film strip version of the cliff notes of the books. its not all bad and though and the animation brings a warmth to it and that i found lacking in the jackson movies. its nice to imagine what it could have been like with decent funding. this movie is also noteworthy for having the sequel which never came. several years later and a half hearted half hour long tv special was aired and which was meant to wrap things up. all i will say about that is that it was a musical. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i haven not seen this movie in a while and so i am afraid i can not be very specific about details. it did have some interesting points. ralph bakshi attempt at an animated adaptation of j. r. r tolkien masterpiece was a very ambitious project and so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. therefore and not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made) and the film itself seems less than finished. it seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed and but whether or not it intentional is hard to say. the whole thing seems shabbily made and undone and especially the orcs and the nazgul. another problem and of course and is the huge gaps in the plot. bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie and and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by peter jackson does it in about twice that time. ) far too many important bits were left out (and i do not refer only to tom bombadil and which and i think and was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie. ) and of course and the ending and which is completely sudden and out of place. i am not even sure if bakshi originally intended to end the film there and or if he even had any idea where he going to end it. the characters. well and most of them were okay. the hobbits do not look so bad (except for the gay sam. did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make sam a woman so there would be a feminine lead character. ) if youre a tolkien fanatic (like me) and watch this movie (though i am not too sure about buying it. what special features does the dvd version have and anyway. ) but know in advance that youre not going to watch a real lord of the rings movie but not much more than a historical curiosity and which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the beatles carried on with their plan (i actually think a psychedelic lotr could have been quite cool. the idea was to cast george as gandalf and paul as frodo and ringo as sam and john as gollum. ) if you do not read the book or do not like it much or do not like animation films or do not want to see a half finished movie. stay away. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i might have given this movie a higher rating before peter jackson trilogy came out and but seeing the two of them side by side there is simply no comparison. the pace of this movie is rushed and many important scenes from the book are left out and and there is little character development. the animation is a strange mixture of traditional cartoon drawings and live action scenes that were painted over and which i found distracting. and the most disappointing thing about this movie is that it breaks off in the middle of the story and was never finished. there are some good points the battle scenes are exciting to watch and and the dialogue follows the book pretty much to the letter. watch this one if youre in a hurry and can not spend 10 hours watching the new trilogy. but if you haven not read the book you will probably be confused and because there is a lot missing from this version. 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:
"watching this again recently and i found it heartwarming to see the way they sincerely tried to bring the book to the screen and even if the shoestring budget and hammy actors meant inevitable failure. by any objective measure this was a disaster and but i found it easy to imagination how good a lord of the rings movie could be if someone was to make one sincerely and with the money to employ the most talented artists and script writers. unfortunately and thanks to jackson and that will not be possible for a long time. watching this movie left me with the impression that with any sort of budget at all and then this story simply couldn not be stuffed up. fantasy just provides so many opportunities for making an interesting film. there were many moments in this film that were potentially more interesting than the way that peter jackson did it and although of course you always have to use your imagination due to the poor execution. the way they tried to show the wraith world from frodo point of view for example. or the way that galadriel showed sam what was happening back home for another. another thing i really appreciated in this version the silent moments. there were moments when dialog was spoken with no background music against a still back drop. compare that to the grandiose swooping camera of the jackson films and and the intrusive score which seemed designed to stress how each and every scene was the most poignant and powerful scene we had ever watched. jackson films were full of their own importance and this was quieter and a lot more modest. jackson and co hit this with more than us$270 million dollars in production costs and at least $90 million dollars more for marketing and a massive tax break from the nz government and and also gained massive savings from filming in nz not the usa. however and despite the marketing claims and the intention to be faithful was never there. this is well documented. philippa boyens said as much in an interview and when she said they deliberately do not re read the books before writing the script. jackson also stated that they originally intended to make a fantasy film along the lines of the lord of the rings and and that the one he really wanted to do was return of the king and because it had a lot of battles but no character development. in contrast and this film tried to be more true. of course a lot of things were wrong and the acting was awful and pretty much sunk everything and and the pace was too fast. naturally they cut a lot and and adapted other scenes and and for this they deserve credit. while jackson added a lot of action scenes that served no plot purpose and bakshi cut book scenes which did nothing to advance the plot anyway. there actually a curious similarity between the structure of the jackson and bakshi films near the beginning in that they both deviate from the original books in the same way although of course some of this could be coincidence. this was not a good film and but the potential was there. bakshi said in an interview to the onion av club that only animation could do the lord of the rings justice. his version do not work and but he might have been right. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 causes more unintentional laughter than anything else i have ever seen. really and if you are a tolkien fan and rent it just to laugh at it with your friends. i would not be the millionth person to rip apart its flaws. all i will say is that the movie (for me and anyway) lost major points for turning my favorite character and sam and into a bumbling idiot. shame and shame. negative . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i watched peter jackson version of lord of the rings when i was half way through reading the two towers and i thought it was absolutely brilliant. at this time the animated version of the lord of the rings was released on dvd but i told myself that i will finish reading the two towers and return of kings before watching it (as i thought it showed the whole of the trilogy). so when i did finish the trilogy i went and brought the dvd and which was a stupid idea because it was absolutely rubbish. i was acturly bored 20 minutes in to it which was really strange because i love the book and i am shooked that the maker of this film could of even thought of fitting at least 1 and a half of the books in to a 2 hour 8 minute film. none of the characters had any emotions when they were talking and they seemed to be reading it of a page and even my favourite character who is gandalf did not seem interesting at all. the animation was the only okay in parts of the film except for the orks (they looked awful) and aragorn and sam face. i do not know way this film was released because there was not even a proper ending and but maybe it was good that the maker ran out of money because the film couldn not of got any better. i just hope that nobody judges the books by this film. 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:
"bashki should be congratulated for attempting to convert one of the great works of english fiction into a movie and and then slapped silly for this attempt. the animation was poor and the characters looked ridiculous and the music was overwhelmingly blaring and and the film was a ramshackle blitz through the first book and a half of tolkien masterpiece. i can still remember my sheer disappointment and loathing for the movie when i first saw it. now i realize that any attempt to convert a book into a movie is bound to fail in many ways and simply because of the medium and but this movie and regardless of the source of the story and is just plain pathetic. bashki is capable of much more. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 premise and subject about making a criminal realize what his victims went through by capturing his family hostage sounds promising and interesting. but this is the only interesting part which was also dealt 20 years ago with quite finesse by director ravi tandon in his film jawab(1985) too. the problem here is ace director rajkumar santoshi found himself in some sort of confusion as to whether to make it a fast paced action thriller (viz. khakee) or an emotions rich heavy duty drama (viz. damini) and this confusion is quite evident in the final outcome. if we ignore two of his pukar (2000) and lajja(2001) and this brilliant director has always given us fairly engrossing films with high entertainment value. therefore this film comes as a surprise and as to what made this script sensitive director going for half baked characterization of both of his protagonists amitabh bachchan and aryeman. as the film is getting over and audience do not know whom to hate and whom to sympathize with and this factor is the major limiting force in the complete narration. therefore what starts as a war between a common man and an underworld don ends on a strange note of self realization and regret by the don about what went wrong with his own family. the revelation of don son as a real baddie does not come as a surprise element in the climax which if compared to similar situation in khakee worked so effectively with aishwarya character. that is not all and there is more to it. the whole dramatization of life of an underworld don and operating from abroad looks quite illogical. his openly landing up at mumbai from where he is suppose to be absconding as well as running after his enemies and shooting them himself does not look believable. pitching a mediocre and newcomer actor like aryeman opposite mr. bachchan is again not a good idea. but nonetheless film has some plus points. ashok mehta fine camera work and two good fight sequences (co ordinator abbas ali moughal) and some light well acted scenes of akshay kumar in the ist half and santoshi fast paced slick treatment and of course mr. bachchan as usual trying hard to put some life into his lifeless character. but all these put together does not make this viewing an exciting experience for you and your family. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"after watching khakee i felt i will get to watch another good film but sadly the film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce aryeman afterall his father keshu is the producerrks spoke so highly about the film during promotions and saying the film has meat unlike films released that time and i wonder which films was he talking aboutthe film is actually a typical masala film with loads of comedy and romance and action everything jumbledthe ease at which the kids kidnap the family and is one of the funniest parts ever and imagine kids kidnapping dawood familythe end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterizationrks gives his weakest film till date and except some bachchan scenes the film is a boremusic is boringamitabh tries to give the role his all and he does his part well and though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar his dubbing too isn not matched properly at timesakshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hamsaryeman seems expressionless and tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenesbhumika emerges the best of the lotthe rest are okay. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"rajkumar santoshi without any doubt has directed the greatest movies and biggest box office hits of indian cinema. this movie falls short of all expectations as this movie stars two great actors mr. amitabh bachchan and akshay kumar and when you have these two actors in the same movie you have to make a magnum opus. in the later part of the movie you can make out that amitabh bachchan voice has been dubbed by some other person which was due to his illness. still the movie didnt had proper character development plus cinematography wasnt good too and one thing that bollywood should learn is that they should use visual effects only when it is needed and when applied should be done with a high budget. the script had so many flaws which gives the viewer excuses to attend his phone calls rather than watching the movie. the new comer shakes the leg well but could not act well but where the movie loses big time is the storyline screenplay and cinematography. a talented actor like bhoomika chawla has been wasted in the movie as well as sushant singh. but every director once in a while in his career makes a bad film. so watch it only if you are a fan of multi starrer flop movies. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"hello and can anybody hear me. i do not know why you came to this page and but if youre a fellow viewer of this movie represent join the fanclub. this movie was so unbelievably bad i couldn not stop laughing when i saw it. i think it a must see and it bad in a nice way. every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. i am afraid it very hard to get a copy of this movie and but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies 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:
"two houses and one street and one phone booth and one car and a girl next door and a boy next door and a zombie. this list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. all you need is some blue light and ambient music and. done. not in the hands of dutch director van rouveroy though. i like to organize bad movie evenings from time to time. the concept is really simple represent get some booze and get some film loving friends and and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. for such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. laughs guaranteed. the bizarre thing is and van rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. to be a witness to this you will have to listen to the dvd commentary track. again represent disbelieve and laughs guaranteed. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 not just a bad film and it one of the worst films ever. it so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting and oh my god and the script and you gotta be kiddin. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like represent a kid who makes fireworks in school and fireworks so powerfull and that when someone gets hit by it and they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. a girl is trapped in the celler and the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill and but the wire isn not long enough. she first makes an extension cord and oh the horror and and then and when she done and she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. wow and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah and and what happened to george kennedy and he used to be great (thunderbolt and lightfoot or cool hand luke). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i do not know why i keep doing this to myself. i keep on defending the dutch and belgian cinema and claim that it should get more credit and chances. and then they smack you around the head with junk like this. intensive care is a terrible production and probably the worst thing that was ever made in the dutch speaking countries. it a dutch attempt to create our very own horror franchise and clearly based on mainstrain american slasher classics such as friday the 13th and halloween. the producers and writers aimed really high with this and but fell really low. intensive care became an embarrassing product to everyone who was involved and therefore a true cult flick here. it almost impossible to hunt down an original copy of this and it only showed on special occasions and like the night of distaste. for exactly 5 minutes and intensive care tries to tell a story and even to create a plotline. then it changes into a lame and low brain slash n stalk movie with gruesome yet very hilarious and cheap make up effects. the acting of the entire cast is abominable and even though there are a few respected names involved. the leading male role is played by koen wauters. this guy might as well be the most famous and loved artist in belgium. he a beloved singer and host of tv shows and idol of many young girls. he never ever mentions this thing he starred in and though. like everybody else in the netherlands and he trying to convince himself intensive care never happened. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i thought intensive care was quite bad and very unintentionally funny. but at least not as bad as i thought it might be. sometimes it somewhat suspenseful and but never a good shocker. spoiler aheadthe fun lies in ridiculous moments. but the all time classic moment is this represent peter (koen wauters) is stabbed and beaten by the killer. he lies moaning in the corner of the hallway. amy (nada van nie) kneels beside him and asks poor peter and shall i get you a band aid. this movie was shot in dutch and english. to spare costs and all license plates are usa and and the background in the news studio is a skyline of manhattan. very funny if youre dutch and watching the original version in dutch. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"koen wouters is a flemish singer and presenter. in the early ninety he tried his hand on movies as well. but this unbelievable piece of junk ended his acting career once and for all. it also ended the acting career of dutch actress nada van nie who went on being a football wife a tv presenter and program maker. i actually did see this in an ( almost empty) theatre because i used to be a fan of the band of koen wouters and clouseau. i so regret spending money on it. it looks cheap and it is a terrible story and it is executed bad in every possible way. some people think it so bad it funny. i am not one of them. i just found it an incredible waste of time and money. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"intensive care by dorna von rouveroy is easily one of the worst horror movies ever made. this extremely cheap dutch slasher flick offers some gore and plenty of absurd situations. a horror veteran george kennedy is completely wasted as as professor bruckner. the acting is abysmal and the action is slow and the climax is laughable. a famous surgeon has a car accident. he lies in a coma seven years and then he wakes up and goes on a bloody rampage. intensive care is clearly influenced by american slasher films including halloween and friday the 13th series. the killings are hilarious and the dialogs are painfully stupid. still if you are in the right mood you can give this piece of trash a look. you will laugh until it hurts with this one you can believe me. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"this infamous ending to koen wauters career came to my attention through the night of bad taste. judging by the comment index i wasn not the first and i am not to be the last person in western europe to learn that this musician (undoubtedly one of the best on our contemporary pop scene and even the dutch agree on that) tried to be an actor. whether he should have made the attempt or not cannot be judged. in intensive care he quite likable and but he seems to be uncomfortable with the flick in which he is participating. no one can blame him. it deserves its ranking in verheyen hall of fame by all means and standards. the story of the murderous maniac who is supposed to have died in an accident but is alive and wrathful has been told dozens of times before and and even without original twists a director can deliver a more than mediocre story through innovative settings and cinematography. ic contents itself with a hospital wing and a couple of middle class houses. the pace is dull. the tension looses the last bit of its credibility to the musical score and for every appearance of the murderer is accompagnied by a tedious menacing melody and followed by orchestral outbursts during the murders and which or largely suggested and in any case as bloodless as a small budget can make them. the sex scene is gratuitous but not in the least appealing. the couple from amsterdamned could have made it work and though. while dealing with the couple subject represent the whole subplot between wauters and the girl does not work. a more effective emotional connection could have been established on screen if they had just been fellow victims to be and who loosen their nerves halfway through physical intercourse. i will not even grant the other cast members the dignity of a mentioning and for they should all have been chopped up into tiny greasy pieces. as a matter of fact and most of them do. the ones i recall where obvious for the genre represent a pretty nurse and two cops. hence and in a slasher and the cavalry only comes in time to need rescue itself. the (anti ) hero has to take out the villain and mostly through clever thinking and for former red berets do not often get parts in these films while they might overcome the illusion of invincibility that surrounds the killer. translated to the events and wauters kills the doctor and saves the dame in distress. no people and i am not finished. this is not how the story goes. wauters makes his heroic attempt but gets beaten up with a fury that comes close to a clockwork orange and so it is up to the girl to pick up the driller killer act and pierce through the doctors brains. though this method ensures the killer death more than the usual rounds of 9mm bullets and the doctor survives in order to enable ic to reach the 80 min mark. i should have made my point by now. intensive care is a bad movie and which can only be enjoyed by bad taste lovers and who can verify verheyen catchy statements and make some up for themselves and that way try to sit through it. for example and the (unintended) parody value of the doctor clown mask (halloween) and the final confrontation in the park (the chase at the end of friday the 13th). however and let me conclude by giving an overview by a few measly elements which give ic a little credit. george kennedy is not one of them. all he has to do is endure a horrible monologue by a fellow doctor or french actor and look horrified when they let him go down in flames in order to tag his big name on a stand in. he could have played his naked gun part again and to end up as beef and but with a longer screen time. the finale may be one of them. i had never seen a maniac being brought down by launching fireworks into his guts in order to crush him against a flexible fence. it is good for a laugh. name one good truly point about intensive care . koen wauters learned his lesson and devoted himself entirely to his musical career. it makes me wonder how many editions of the paris dakar race he has to abort before coming to his senses. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 will start by admitting i am not a john ford fan. (i watched the informer only because i am trying to work my way through a list of the greats. ) so if you are and just move along and cause youre not going to agree with me. what an overwrought and dated piece of silliness this is. i will say that there is a good idea for a movie here (it made me think about how few films there are about the irish revolution) but and as usual and ford is determined to bury it under over acting and cheap sentiment. i suppose it somewhat interesting to watch for a while in order to see the less than seamless transition that was being made from the silents to the talkies the acting styles of some of the principals have that overbroad quality endemic to early films and movie does feel as if it might play better with title cards than spoken dialogue. (of course and title cards would prevent ford from restating every bit of emotion six times. ) what dialogue there is usually has a theyre always after me lucky charms. quality that is aggravated by the fact that each actor seems to have been allowed to use his or her own personal version of an irish accent. of course and as bad as they are and the accents are helpful in reminding us were in ireland because the sets mostly look as if they were dragged in from from some german expressionist piece being filmed on the next soundstage over. (it feels as if and with an eagle eye and you might see some villagers off to torch dr. frankenstein in the background. )techniques change. tastes change. so i would not go off on how crazy it seems that this film was so acclaimed in its day. but it not one of the classics that hold up more just fair warning about the kind of over simplified malarkey to which ford was going to devote his career. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have seen about 820 movies released between 1931 39 and and the informer is the worst major release i have seen from that time span. awful and despicable and unpleasant and unhappy and unredeemable saga of a complete loser. watch a 1934 b western 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:
"i will warn you here represent i chose to believe those reviewers who said that this wasn not an action film in the usual sense and rather a psychological drama so you should appreciate it on that basis and you will be alright. i am here to tell you that they were wrong. completely wrong. well and no and not completely while it is very disappointing if you are looking for an action flick and they were right about that. but it is also very unsatisfying on all other levels as well. tom beringer wasn not too bad and i suppose and no worse than usual while but what possessed them to cast billy zane in this. was it some sort of death wish on the part of the producers. a way to made their film a guaranteed flop. in that case and it worked. if they were actually aiming for success and then why not cast somebody who can act. oh and and might as well go for a screenwriter who knows how to write. ah and yes and and a director who knows how to direct. as someone who sat through this mess and actually believing it would shortly redeem itself and i can assure you it never did. pity and it could have been a good 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:
"realistic movie and sure and except for the fact that the characters do not look like to be scared. when billy zane tries to kill someone and he feels bad. but he doesn not look like to. that why i do not like his performance in this movie. tom berenger is again playing a soldier. no good thrill and realistic sequences. not always shooting and that is one great thing. well filmed. i hate the helicopter sequence and cause only one terrorist kills almost the whole marine bunch. i give it and a half out of . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"despite its interesting premise and sniper is quite tedious. with a tighter script and sharper directing it could have been electrifying while instead it plods along with little tension. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"not much to say on this one. a plot you can pretty much peg and in the first 10 minutes. nothing overly wrong with this film and very little action for an action film. there was a chance to explore the characters emotions occasionally. whether an action film is the right genre to do that with and i am still undecided. sniper was one of the easiest films to watch without giving full attention to and as it had little twists and a straightforward plot. i was probably guilty of that and so with a second watch or with undivided attention it may be better. negative (but the best of my 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:
"eleven great filmmakers and eleven pieces of garbage. eleven minutes each of sheer tedium and sophistry and condescension and self indulgence. treats for people of all nations. yussef chahine of egypt giving a hip hip hooray. for terorism in his amateurish segment. across the green line we have amos gitai of israel and using his eleven minutes to show a terrorist act and focus on a jerky newscaster. alejandro gonzález iñárritu of mexico concentrated on the twin towers but seemed to forget to turn on his camera. sean penn not knowing that there were no buildings within the shadow of the trade center on 9 11. shohei imamura of japan ignoring the whole thing. claude lelouch focussing on a trivial and cliched love affair. ken loach of the uk focussing on chile. etc. etc. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"first of all and i ain not american or middle eastern. second of all and i do not have a religion. the closest thing to a religion i have are sports and movies. henceforth and i believe i would be best served to supply an opinion of neutrality and free from bias. most of these short films are an utter disgrace. this dreadful event should be used to commemorated all those innocent people whom were murdered by some barbaric and uncivilized morons. instead and most of what i saw in these short films were conceited attempts to score varied political points. examples represent1) ken loach segment. sure and we are all sad that this dude had a hard life in his country but what has that got to do with the innocent victims of 2001. two wrongs do not make a right. whatever. this film should have a subtitle for those who have trouble listening to a partially incoherent chilean english accent. 2) most disturbing is youssef chahine segment. it is obvious that he has trouble with logic. he justified the murders due to america being a democracy and because some americans voted the politicians in power and then all americans in the end are responsible for the actions and decisions made by their leaders on the middle east. helloooo. is this guy for real. some americans do not even vote. some americans do not even know where the middle east is while some do not even know what religion is practiced there while and majority do not know the real political issues that are played behind the scenes. ### mr chahine and the reason why we have all these problems in the world is because there are too many people with your kind of logic. the innocent victims in the twin towers came from around the world. the murdered firefighters and rescuers and office workers and by standers and flight passengers have nothing to do with politics. and yet and we are not allowed to go about our lives because some people think everyone has to choose a side or a religion. we are perceived as fair game for the extreme politics. 3) the israeli segment showed their own bombed victims. another filmmaker using this event to push their own political agenda. sometimes and it is not about you. some people always think about the me and me and me. sometimes and it is about other people. 4) idrissa ouedraogo segment is a joke and another political point scorer. they obviously want money from the international community by highlighting their poverty. blah and blah and blah. this movie denigrates the memory of sept. 11th and 2001 victims. the best thing for it is the trash can. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have never panned a film on line and but i felt moved to do so and after seeing this one. one doesn not show up at someone funeral and say to the bereaved and my relatives died and so why should i care about yours. minus the propaganda and there was little and if anything and that could be called art. as the daughter of deaf parents and i was particularly annoyed by the use of deafness as a gimmick. any deaf person feeling a vibration of that immensity would likely have investigated and not ignored it. the word chutzpah comes to mind. as a writer and there are few subjects i would stay away from represent the holocaust is one while this is another. i wish these movie makers had not been so arrogant (and inept). "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i have found the movie offensive for americans which lost somebody in the towers and for american people in general. pretending to be an homage to horrible facts happened last years and each director takes the opportunity to polemize with old facts (which have none to do with a terrorist attack) and or criticize american political behaviour and or compare different political situation as they have in own country having this nothing to do or to share with the atrocity of september 11. shame on them. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"have you ever wondered what would happen if a couple of characters from beverly hills 90210 were thrown into a thai jail. if so and this is your movie. this is midnight express for the mtv crowd. that would be ok and but the story was poorly executed. contrived plot twists and poor dialogue and unresolved issues abound. this slight film did not earn the right to be as cryptic as it ends up being. potential spoiler and impossibly preposterous plot line the faux tension filled moment when the hotel employee discovers the girls do not have a room there and is about to kick them out. (this moment is innappropriately played with the same solemnity and gravity as the moment when they are arrested at gunpoint). later the same hotel employee is somehow found and bangkok is a big city and mind you and ive been there and testifies against the girls and as if a couple of free mai tais warrant 40 years in prison. c amon. rent another day in paradise 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:
"i had been looking forward to seeing this film for a long time and after seeing return to paradise and which i found to be gritty. i was so disappointed. the most realistic thing about it was the unpredictable ending which i think was partly stolen from return to paradise. maybe i was expecting too much. on the positive side danes and beckinsale and pullman were fantastic in their roles. although i didnt like danes character and first and found her very annoying. i couldnt see anything realistic about the film. it could of been done so much better and for example there could of been more emphasis on the prison conditions and the sheer horror. it was too cheery a movie to be realistic. there could also of been more action and tensionthe best thing about this film is the tragic ending. i couldnt of predicted that. but by that time i really didnt care what happened to them. 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:
"a very good story for a film which if done properly would be quite interesting and but where the hell is the ending to this film. in fact and what is the point of it. the scenes zip through so quick that you felt you were not part of the film emotionally and and the feeling of being detached from understanding the storyline. the performances of the cast are questionable and if not believable. did i miss the conclusion somewhere in the film. i guess we have to wait for the sequel. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"brokedown palace is not the kind of movie i would ever like to see. i also did not like the movie when some aussie man smuggled drugs in thailand and accused claire danes and kate beckinsale of drug smuggling. i would not go to that country no matter what after i saw this movie. in fact this movie stinks. i prefer to visit germany to meet beautiful single women. germany is the country i tolerate. i also would rather stick to the united states instead. after i saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling and i left the theatre and had my money refunded because i cannot tolerate this movie. if you are going to to thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler and forget this. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"(spoilers ahead) russian fantasy actioner (and i use the term loosely) that i have been trying to watch for over a year. i have finally gotten to the end and now i wish i do not put in the repeated effort. in an effort to save two hours of your life i am going to tell you he plot a guy who has the ability to project a long blade out of his arm returns home to see his mom. things turn ugly after he is beaten up by the mafia boyfriend of an old girl friend. he takes revenge on the guy when he brings the girl home. the guys mafia mom sends her men out to get revenge while the cops begin looking for him as well. very little is said. no explanation is really given for anything (like why they lock id girlfriend in an asylum) and the action and for the most part is all off screen. the film essentially consists of a guy who looks like adrian brody looking intense and not saying anything and killing people (off screen most of the action happens off screen). it looks good and is well acted and had there been some form of reason for what is going on it might have been a good film. hell and i would have liked some sense of real character development or back story (all we know is that the guy was picked on as a kid). the movie runs the better part of two hours and it feels like its six. if they weren not going to tell us anything they could have at least picked up the pace so it seemed like it was moving too fast. no instead we get the hero on a boat. the hero in a bus and the hero walking and the hero looking disturbed. hero with his girl. it really annoyed me since i think this could have been a good film if they had simply done something or had someone actually say something meaningful other than give instructions to get this guy. negative . its about four hours (all my attempts to see this) i will never get back. only for those who want to see a brooding russian action film with very little action. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"nothing positive to say. meandering nonsense and huffing and puffing with a message. new russian (post soviet) films can be very good (cuckoo comes to mind) and yet many have the bouquet of cardboard and the aftertaste of asbestos (nochnoi dozor would be a good example). this is a dozor type of emptiness. acting would be horrible if not for the saving grace of utterly unappealing direction and incompetent editing that sometimes is so awful that it distracts from the impotence of the actors. special award to the cameraman for making sure that every shot is shaky (would someone please realize that blair witch has had its 15 seconds of undeserved fame. ) and takes are geared towards attention deficit pre teens who subside on counterstrike and masturbation. the female lead poses and tries to look seductive too often and male antihero need a diction coach (although genetics aren not bad represent rather expressive eyes. ) one (middle) finger for this irrelevant pile of non art. anyone who reviews this positively better be a (distant) cousin of the auteurs. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"it a really cheesy parody of tomb raider and some indiana jones and the humor cheesy and and so is the acting. but after all it is a soft core movie and which is expected and doesn not matter because what you really want is the sex. which gets me to the biggest problem of all and there barely is any of it. which makes you feel like youre watching tv at 3 am and the independent movies are playing and the one that is on was made by some college kid that going nowhere in that industry. youre left a very long time waiting for an actual sex scene and a lot of times you are thinking something is going to happen and then just left hanging. the one(maybe two and or one with two parts)that actually goes somewhere is very pleasing though. i personally can not recommend this unless you found it in a clear out bin for a dollar or two. if you lucking for a good movie with a plot and good acting and you do not want this. if you looking for a good soft core lesbian film and you do not want this 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:
"possible spoilersthis straight to video mess combines a gun toting heroine and grade z effects and nazis and a mummy and endless lesbian footage and it still boring while the video 45 minute running time only seems like eternity. the only good part is one of the blooper outtakes and wherein the bad guys force a 400 pound egyptologist into a chair and one villain foot almost gets crushed under a chair leg. take this snoozer back to the video store and watch televised golf and bowling or tennis 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:
"this movie is not for the faint or weak of heart. it couldn not decide if it was going to be porn or legit. it was neither one. it was just bad. there was nothing in this movie to make me want to see anything else made by these people 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:
"someone had a great idea represent let have misty mundae do her own and r rated version of lara croft firing two guns not only in skimpy outfits and but topless as well. it was indeed a great idea. the problem is that the people who had it couldn not come up with any sort of script or budget to support it. therefore and we get a film that barely reaches medium length by replaying many of its parts (often in slow motion) and and was apparently shot entirely inside a garage. the appeal of misty mundae is still evident represent she is unbelievably cute and has a natural girl next door beauty. however her two female co stars here and with whom she shares a lengthy lesbian scene and are nowhere near her league. if mummy raider was presented as a youtube video and i would rate it higher and but as a film destined for dvd consumption it cannot get more than half a out of 4. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"not long enough to be feature length and not abrupt enough to a short and this thing exists for one reason and to have a lesbian three way. there are worse reasons to exist. one sad thing is that this could have made a decent feature length movie. misty fits snuggly into her outfit and is a very cocky girl and when people are so infatuated with a game character and like lara croft and that they make nude calenders of her and you know that a soft core flick is set to explode. unfortunately and this is pretty pathetic. especially the painfully fake sex scene between darian and misty and where you can see her hand is fingering air. watch this if you just can not get enough of misty or ruby and who makes a nice blonde and has zee verst jerman akcent 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 can not say i am all that experienced in misty mundae flicks having seen only a handful and but it obvious that this was made on a shoestring and and while it might have been respectable that the filmmakers were able to make a tomb raider rip off inside a garage and it isn not because it completely obvious that this is what they were doing. the film only runs for forty five minutes and and this is definitely a good thing as there isn not nearly enough plot here to stretch it out for any longer. it has something to do with an evil nazi scientist (who looks about as evil as a porn star playing a nazi scientist ever could) and a mummy and which is clearly a man wrapped up in toilet roll and misty this film version of tomb raider and who keeps her top on for much less time than angelina jolie did in the big budget version. i have to say that even in spite of its shortcomings and this film could have been better. it got misty mundae for a start and and even better than that if you ask me is the fact that it also stars the even hotter darian caine. the pair gets to engage in all the lesbian sex that you would expect from a seduction cinema film and this is at the expense of the nonexistent plot and although that isn not really a bad thing. obviously and this is a rubbish film but the fact that it short is to its credit and and if youre after a bit of lesbian sex and you could do worse. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"may contain spoilersthe titular topless heroine rescues another beautiful babe and her father (an eccentric professor whose stock pith helmet is broken in one shot and whole in the next) from a moth eaten and dime store mummy and nasty nazis out to what else. build a fourth reich. misty costume and like those of some other wimmen and gets skimpier as the movie rolls on. the last portion of the movie is devoted to protracted lesbian action while this footage actually gets real boring and real fast and which says more about the critters behind the camera than the curvaceous creatures in front of it. misty gets its nominal plot out of the way first and fast and then gives undivided attention to nudity and soft core sex. this makes mummy raider a throwback to movies made in the 1960s by guys like stan borden and david f. friedman and harry novak. just think represent if this wonder work had been cranked out four decades ago and it would have played for years on 42nd street along with wham bam thank you spaceman and kiss me quick. as it is and misty mundae mummy raider went straight to home video. grab yours and quick and before it goes out of print. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"there is no way on earth you are going to care about any of these characters. a bunch of spoilt middle class overgrown kids take some drugs at a party and get off with each other and argue. i have just seen this on tv and i do not think it was a film as such and more a post this life indulgence that really has no resonance or proper drama to it. stuff like this will get commissioned for time immemorial unfortunately and irrelevant middle class lifestyle crap that takes itself far too seriously. it got david baddiel in it and that bird out of cold feet and you know what to expect. there was a lot of this stuff about in 2000 and it was a particularly british malaise. theyre educated and doing drugs. friends and but kinda dysfunctional and with incestuous relationships. sounds great. this kind of nonsense and and post guy ritchie comedy gangster stuff. dark days. if you have taste and this will annoy you to the point of violence. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 rarely moved to make a comment online about a film. but i can not understand how this one got made. who made it. how could they have possibly thought they were capable of making a feature film. did they do a weekend course at some film school and get a nice big cheque from daddy and kidnap david badiel family one by one until he agreed to be in it. or was he by any chance a longtime family friend or distant relation doing this out of sheer and misplaced kindness. i do not care and do not want to know. even he looks utterly embarrassed to be in it and mumbling his lines and hiding his face from the camera. meanwhile the dop must have been the gaffer from neighbours and there seemed to be absolutely no sound design and the script and the direction and editing were all abysmal and and quite frankly the apathy that overwhelms me right now means that i can not be bothered to spend any more of my life thinking about this film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"do not be suckered into renting this movie. it has nothing to do with an escape from death row and despite the (english) title. i can not think of a single good thing to say about the movie. poor acting and poor editing and poor directing. laughable plot and and the sound or music was so irritating and it a wonder this movie doesn not come with a warning label. the only possible way to sit through this movie and enjoy it is for it historical cheesiness quality. they just do not make films this bad anymore. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"kalifornia is disturbing. i believe there is no reason for this story to be told. it is neither entertaining nor does it have social value. technically and the movie is very well make and the performances are top rate and first class. the story develops in an intriguing way that holds interest. but at the end this movie sickens and is abhorrent to decency. i recommend kalifornia to no 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:
"honestly and if anyone has a brain and there not 1 positive thingto say about this movie what so ever. i lost my $1 renting this. i would rather laugh at will smith saying if you got a dream and you got to protect it. all the actors must have been bored or had no fame at the time. even matthew mc conahay however you spell it was better then all the actors in this movie and when he played a psycho in texas chainsaw 4. if you see this movie and and have anything good to say and you iq and must be extremely low and with such bad taste in movies and it hurts. thank you. and the truth and has been spoken. save yourself from the misery. get devil rejects and now that 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 was expecting to love this movie film noir and serial killer and dark irony. i was baffled by many choices the characters made (hey and i know theyre creepy looking and but let hook up for a cross country road trip anyway. ) and found the pacing to be glacial and and the emphasis on moody lighting to take the place of original thought by the director and cinematographer. thinking about it now and this would have been a much better movie if someone had just run the script through the common sense o meter (1992 model) before starting to 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:
"distasteful and cliched thriller has young couple doing cross country research on america most infamous murder sites and becoming road partners with a dim witted young woman and her snarling boyfriend who is an actual psycho. arty and alienating and the film tone alternates between pouty pseudo irony and silly flamboyance. handsomely made perhaps and but ultimately laughable. brad pitt performance as the low rent killer is godawful. from . "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"in an interview and david duchovny said he hasn not been able to watch even the first hour of this film and neither should you. the scene where he asks the owner of a house where a murder was committed if he can look around change the name he gives and he could had lifted his performance from just about any episode of the x files. he on autopilot for the whole film. brad pitt overacts appallingly. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 to suffer without an adventure to run and no enigma to solve. just an illness man and acting like an animal. no a good reason to take this journey. pitt and lewis are great actors while magnificent michelle forbes but a weak david duchovny performance. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"german nut case jörg buttgereit apparently has fans but i do not know why and and i am definitely not one of them. the only buttgereit film i would seen previously was nekromantik and i hated every minute of it and but shockingly this film is worse. der todesking is pointless in the same way as nekromantik and but it a worse film because it boring in a way that few movies have ever managed (it not far off the blair witch project and seriously). some people say that this film is ick and hocking and but it really isn not. the director may have been making a point about death and but only he knows what it is. how anyone could watch this film and be anything other than bored with it is completely beyond me. the film revolves around the theme of suicide and and follows the deaths of seven different people over the course of a week. yes and that means we have a pointless and boring episode for monday and a pointless and boring episode for tuesday and a pointless and boring episode for wednesday etc etc. this film manages to be even more boring than my average week. der todesking is apparently an art film and although this would appear to be a reference to the way that not very much makes sense rather than a reference to the film bearing any resemblance to art. each segment of the film is meant to tell a separate story but it doesn not. we just get a quick little sketch on suicide and and it only makes you wonder what the point is. the film feels like it should be deep and but there a great big void where the intelligence should be and nothing there to fill it. buttgereit uses a few evocative images while but i am unlikely to remember any of them for more than a week or so because this film just isn not that memorable. there a shot involving a decomposing man body that features fairly often and but that gets old pretty quick and all youre left with is the rest of the film and which is unfortunate. if i were to struggle for good things to say about this crap and all i can think of is this while the title sounds cool. as i mentioned and nekromantik is the only other film i have seen from this amateur director while i have copies of schramm and nekromantik 2 and and now i am really in no rush to watch either. der todesking is a dull film with no point and anyone that calls it art is very much mistaken. give it a miss. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 subject notwithstanding and this is an amateur and exhibitionist movie or an effort at one which is about as interesting and daring as a moody high school student composition book full of death poetry. to be sure and it will disturb viewers who are hell bent on being disturbed and but the success will be attributable to themselves and not to the director. to genuinely get under somebody skin requires sensibility and discipline and technique and and talent and as well as an eye and an ear. the film does contain one evocative image and shown as a still (and also used on the video case) and but with no development leading up to or away from it. if the director had had an eye and he would have seen it as a possible starting point for an interesting movie that is and a movie. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i am sorry but this is just awful. i have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost do not believe me. there is nothing wrong with the idea and modern day japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. when the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say hey my watch has stopped. imagine lines like that being repeated 15 plus times before they say anything else and you have the movie lack of greatness in a nutshell. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"watching cbs surrender and dorothy and i kept wondering why diane keaton would want to be in it (not because it a television movie with the dearth of enticing roles for slightly older actresses and it isn not any wonder why academy award winning performers such as keaton turn to tv but because it offers no opportunities for keaton to shine). a single mother and grieving the sudden death of her twenty something daughter and imposes upon and gradually becomes friends with the group of young people her daughter was close to at the time of her accident. adapted from the novel and this teleplay gives us a group of self absorbed characters one would cross the street to avoid. aside from being coarse and dim and these phony people are incredibly unconvincing and as is the tidy scenario and the bungalow near the beach where the kids reside (one young man and who wears muscle shirts to tell us he gay and hears diane keaton say and surrender and dorothy and actually asks and that from the wizard of oz and right. no and genius and it from citizen kane. ). keaton may have wanted to do this material based on the subject matter of confronting death. she tries turning this distinctly unlikable woman into a shadow of her own personage (lots of kooky outfits) and but it doesn not sit well with the viewer since keaton has always been warmly likable and flexible in a flaky way. here and she a crazed harpy who doesn not learn many lessons on her journey of self discovery (the movie quickly forgets it about a dead young woman and becomes an odyssey for the nervous wreck of a mom and who appears to be an overage hippie who has never lost anyone close to her). this is the kind of film actors promote on talk shows with the caveat and it should help a lot of grieving mothers out there. i can not imagine it helping anyone since it is intrinsically a downer and muddled and baffling. it deranged. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 waited for this movie to play in great anticipation. assuming it would be more accurately portrayed like the movie and the christmas box based on the book by richard paul evans. i sent out many emails to friends and family asking them to please watch this show and hoping they would better understand a tiny amount of my new life. after seeing this movie i was so disappointed. as a mother who lost her only child in november 2003 and really knowing the pain and i had hoped that this movie would shed light to parents who think they understand the grief a parent goes through who has lost a child. this movie was a very light hearted movie and the silliness of diane keaton was a slap in the face to parents who have buried a child. it was very unrealistic from start to stop. i had a few calls after the movie and each call the same and that was so off the mark and made it appear that in a short time you are back on the road and listening to songs on the radio and life is back what a bunch of bull. it is clear that the director and keaton have never lost a child because neither would have ever made the movie to be so off the mark. i guess that hollywood. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"(very light spoilers and maybe. ) normally a fan of diane keaton and i tried to watch this tonight. i had to switch it off before the second hour because i found myself with absolutely no sympathy for daughter or mother. both came across as self absorbed with little regard for others and with the daughter also adding in rude and disrespectful and reckless to the mix. when the daughter died and the only thing i thought was and at least we would not have to watch her anymore. keaton did a good job of moving into her stunned state and into the grieving and but it was too far gone for me by then. i simply wasn not enjoying it and so i stopped watching. if you want me to care for the protagonist and you need to get me caring about the characters much sooner if it nearly an hour in and i do not care and it too late. the supporting cast was sincere and well played i felt for them. and the gay best friend was wonderful and but even combined and that wasn not enough to carry the film for me. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
" half for this diane keaton farce. someone should tell ms. keaton and enough with your annie hall philosophy and hats. this flick is just too much as keaton daughter and sara and dies in a traffic accident and while her boyfriend survives. keaton and who could not be reached by phone at first and as she was in the sack with her pal and had pulled out the phone plug and grieves in a new way for grievers. she retreats to the summer locale where all of sara friends are staying. she cleans the house and sleeps for two days and then begins to reveal things which were better not to be revealed. it appears that sweet sara slept with her girlfriend and the guy who ultimately married the latter. in addition and she had an abortion thanks to this guy. were all now put on this guilt trip. her only hope is to find the elusive diary that sara kept. she also hopes that boyfriend and adam and who is a playwright and will not include all this in another play. when the diary is found and it has been written in japanese. sara had a ph. d in this language. it not that great news for mom when an excerpt of the diary is translated by a japanese cook in a japanese restaurant. naturally and everything seems to tie up nicely in the end. the title of this shmaltz comes from the wizard of oz. every time mom and sara would speak and they would both utter surrender dorothy. as if this isn not enough and during the course of this bizarre extravaganza of mourning and keaton tells adam not to be another woody allen in his film and interiors and where he tried to successfully emulate ingmar bergman. ms. keaton also tries drugs with the group. come on and folks and can we realistically believe that anyone in his right mind could mourn like this. fair to mediocre best sums up this film. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"although the casting for this film was admirable and particularly dianne keaton and tom everett scott and the quality of the writing was so poor that it would be impossible for any actor or director to make this film worth watching. my wife and i decided that the reason we watched the entire film was that it was like a train wreck and and it was almost impossible to turn away. it may have been that we hoped that the message would eventually make itself apparent and and that we would be able to glean some meaning from this effort. unfortunately and this did not happen. of course the audience may have been able to make sense of this convoluted tale and a credit to the ingenuity of the human brain to make sense of the absurd. the writers and however and did nothing to facilitate this innate need we seem to have for finding meaning. it was apparent that those involved were simply going through the motions of their respective crafts and and that any intrinsic passion for the characters or the story was either secondary or non existent. unfortunately and made for tv movies have seemed to devolve over the years. whereas communicating a message to the audience may to have been the primary interest of the writers in the past and present day writers and producers seem condescending to their audience and concentrating primarily on manipulating us to stay tuned through the incessant advertising which seems to be the only reason movies such as surrender and dorothy are 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:
"i could not believe how awful this film was while i rarely watch commercial tv and but thought well and diane keaton is always worth watching. i stand corrected. everyone involved should be hanging their heads in shame. i realize there are not a lot of great roles for women of a certain age and but the script to this was so inept and clichéd and baffling that i am surprised it ever got into development or that ms. keaton thought she could make a silk purse out of this sow ear. none of the characters had a shred of believability and were so incredibly unlikeable. the acting looked like exercises in a beginning class i stared in open mouthed horror through most of this wondering what were they thinking. very and very sad that it has come to this. don not 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:
"i can not believe we watched this total piece of crap but we did and i feel obligated to warn others to avoid it at all costs. when one of the main characters announces that he gay twice in the first five minutes and do not ignore it as typical pc nonsense and figure it has to get better because it would not. if his faggoty boyfriend hanging all over him doesn not make you sick and then be thankful the freak who wrote and or or directed this grossout is somehow attempting a little restraint. i mean and get real. it one thing for there to be a gay character appearing in a movie in such screwed up times as these but quite another to have it continually slapped on the screen and examined up close and personal when the the liner notes clearly state the flick supposed to be about a mother seeking some sort of closure over the sudden death of her daughter. what does one thing have to do with the other and one might be tempted to ask. apparently and the two issues are inextricably interwoven. and if that weren not bad enough and there the bearded lady at the ice cream parlor. i mean and seriously and hasn not that poor woman ever heard of electrolysis. why must she go around like that. at the very least and how about shaving the ugly thing off and and while youre at it and have those horrible moles removed and too. would you slurp up some ice cream she just served you. i think not. it must be a new jersey thing. you would think diane keaton might save this piece of drek and but think again. was she actually trying to put lipstick on a corpse. i do not even wanna think about it. so what if the body was supposed to be that of her own dead daughter. this grotesque excuse for cinema is slop from the word go and that all there is to it. one wishes that each of these characters would simply walk out into the waves and just keep going. none of these flaky people even remotely gain our sympathy for an instant. trust me pass this piece of crap up. it not about death and a mother who inadvertently suffocated her daughter and or even the other much more unsavory issues it keeps bringing up no matter how little you want to hear it. it a load of perverted trash from a misguided and talentless director. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"the first 30min of the flick was choppy and hard to know just what was going on (unless you read the book which i had not). if you can stick with the first half and the second half is sweet predictable and yes and but sweet none the less. the way it was shot one would think it was produced in the early 80 and not 2005. no stand out moments and bland and but it moved along without boring me. i would like to know why keaton selected this role and her part would have been better cast with a player more at the level of the other actors to keep the balance. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is 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 i sat subjected to this televised mediocrity and i wondered why. why did dianne keaton agree to this trash. the movie uses meaningless and contrived plot lines to deliver trash to homes of thousands. the movie takes a political agenda to a new level. the movie was meaningless and and all creditability was lost to the excessive use of stereotype. it was obvious that keaton tried to make this movie worthwhile and but in the end she needs to remember the age old adage that you cannot polish a turd. i hope that you did not waste your new year day watching another mindless made for tv movie. i now know why the networks started airing series on sunday night and to rid us of trash. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"my wife and i started to watch this movie with anticipation. it looked warm and touching. it started out well while but and soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. it got so bad that we turned it off the movie was poorly acted and honesty and we couldn not really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman. you lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. i would have had her committed. and and of course and like most movies and t. v series made in hollywood we have to throw it a token gay character. this movie was boring. i was expecting more from diane keaton. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.
| 0 | 1 |
Please analyze the following IMDB review:
"i just finished reading a book on anita loos work and the photo in tcm magazine of macdonald in her angel costume looked great (impressive wings) and so i thought i would watch this movie. i would never heard of the film before and so i had no preconceived notions about it whatsoever. thought it got off to a cute start with eddy as the playboy and macdonald as the secretary he doesn not know exists. the scene where she shows up at the costume party in her simple angel outfit with an uncooperative halo and wings that would not stay on was really endearing. i was even with the film when eddy goes to sleep and imagines her as a real angel. but after a while it just started to fall apart for me. eddy stays asleep for the entire rest of movie and so it all a dream. whatever happens from there on doesn not really matter and because he just dreaming. the rest of it was pretty much plot less and pointless. i had to force myself to stick with it. and the final number where macdonald goes from musical number to musical number in some mad hallucination was just plain freaky. had eddy woken a sooner and the original story continued and or had he really married an angel and i think it would have been a lot more interesting. i wanted to see more of her real character. there weren not really enough musical numbers to call it a musical. the first few songs were good and but the jitterbug number that macdonald performs was like nails on a chalkboard. completely wrong for her operatic voice. even so and eddy and macdonald still manage to shine and showing what true stars they were. "
You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if 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.