Datasets:

ELVISIO

/

modified_imdb_dataset_official_triplet_forLLM

like 0

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this is an action western. james steart leads an all star cast in the scenic northwest and which is filmed in great splendor. the scenery and costumes are great. there is action and adventure. stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old nothwest. the main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that hollywood has always made into a hero. even when this movie was made and the cynic was the stereotypical hero and and the one stewart portrays really has few saving graces. he is kind to his two partners and and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability. however and he is so piggish to everyone else and it is hard to really care for him and or to accept him. he is much like the one dimensional spaghetti western characters (cut not that bad). still and the minor characters are quite enjoyable. walter brennan and royal dano and harry morgan and and others make this worth watching. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. once again it doesn not make since. the killer still kills for fun. but this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. which means that it is the stupidest movie ever. don not watch this. if you value the one precious hour during this movie then do not watch it. you will want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. because it just doesn not combine the original makes of horror and action and and crime. don not let your children watch this. teenager and young child or young adult and this movie has that sorta impact upon people. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "ah and channel 5 of local mexican t. v. everyday and at 2 represent00 a. m. they air horror movies from the 70 to early 2000 . it was return to cabin by the lake the movie that aired yesterday. i regret for watching it. the original cabin by the lake was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted. the problem is that this sequel is horrible and not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original. ugh. the plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word. the movie at some points looks like a soap opera because of it absurd dialogs and cinematography and and direction. my advice is represent avoid this one at all costs. it a movie that it shouldn not be watched by anyone. not even for lovers of mediocre film making. you have been warned. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath stanley kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings and assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered. film pokes gleeful fun at hollywood and with a tongue in cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(. looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. brian krause and who i thought was dreadful and overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced and portrays the loud and temperamental director who doesn not like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer and alison(. played by dahlia salem)seem to be taking over the production. andrew moxham is paul parsons and who is the brother of a victim from the first film. the film dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it worth. nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty and with stanley as clever as ever and using his brains to commandeer a film production and killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work and letting no one stand in his way. that is until alison realizes who stanley really is. alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject. what motivated stanley to kill and why would he do such a thing and and what led such a man down this dark path. the humor of alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. of course and you get the inevitable showdown between alison and stanley and with a really ridiculous and unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer fate(. quite a hard pill to swallow). unlike the first film and which was photographed with sophisticated polish and director po chih leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(. such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles and slow motion in a sepia color and and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. this sequel and to me and just wasn not on target as much as the original and with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "return to cabin by the lake just. was lacking. it must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. so and within the same scene you will have some movie quality camera shots and simple video camera shots. it makes for a very odd blend. i think they should have found some way to not do the home video type effect. i think it worthwhile to see it if you have seen the original cbtl because then you can compare and see the differences. but if you haven not seen the original cbtl. you will never want to see it if you see this one first. it will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this movie was made for tv and so taking that into account and i am not going to rip into it as hard as i would a feature film. the script is sub par and but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots and whether it means to be or not. the acting is mostly over the top and but that is true for many lower budget movies. the aspect of this movie that i really hated and though and was that 90 95% of it is shot on film and but in random places and there will be 5 10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. you can tell because there is less contrast and the colors are less vivid and and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film 24 frames per second. i am not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they do not have the money to shoot on film (i assume this is why and anyway) and but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look. anyway and i have definitely seen worse movies and but i definitely do not say that i enjoyed this movie and i can not recommend that anyone see 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "if you are planning to see this movie and please reconsider. i do not usually post my comments about something i have seen on television and but this one was such a waste of my life that i needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth. critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it. i will just simply say and please do not ever see this movie. it was a complete waste of my time and it will be a waste of yours. anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things while utterly inept and or working for the company that produced it. again and i guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i saw this on the sci fi channel. it came on right after the first one. for some reason this movie kept me interested. i do not know why and stop asking. spoilers okay. it was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie. in the first movie and he had a reason to kill people and but in this sequal and half of the killings or attempted killings were basicly for no reason. stanley killed the director due to creative differences and he captured the co writer due to creative differences and but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast. no cast and no movie. he wanted it to look real when they died. if this was supposed to be such a high budget movie and use the special effects and man. of course like the first one and the captured girl gets away and and stanley ends up getting messed up and and dissapears. woooooow (sarcasm). this movie had potential. and the saddest thing of all. the really sad part. i would watch a cabin by the lake 3. only because i like judd nelson and and he the only good part about this sequal. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i watched cabin by the lake this afternoon on usa. considering this movie was made for tv is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. so and i tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. i knew i do not like the movie and but i was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of dv (digital video). the movie would have been tolerable if it wasn not for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. i expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots and but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (warning represent the following maybe a spoiler. ) the open ending in cabin by the lake was acceptable and but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. i can only foresee return of return to the cabin by the lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing and but infomercials at 4 oclock in the morning. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "possible spoilerreturn to cabin by the lake is a useless movie. the acting was not good and the plot wasn not even remotely interesting. cabin by the lake is a good tv movie. the sequel was not. judd nelson was very good in the first film and put a whole lot more into his character than in this. it seemed as if he wasn not even interested in doing the sequel. his acting was good but it could have been better. i really do not want to comment on the rest of the cast because in my opinion and theyre not even worth mentioning. but i will do it. the character of alison isn not even hardly shown in the first part of the film. all of a sudden she the center of attention next to stanley caldwell. the role do not make sense and it should have been thought out a little better. dahlia salem was absolutely terrible. her acting was way below decent and the casting people should have looked for somebody else and anybody else. the director and mike and was a confusing character. he seemed to have a purpose for being there but it do not seem like his death was necessary. the acting for this role was good and nothing great but better than salem . the plot was real lousy if you think about it. stanley and who is presumed dead and makes his way onto the set of cabin by the lake and the movie based on his script. he stumbles upon the director and in a short time and the director is dead and stanley is running the show. yeah and out of nowhere the crew is just going to let this stranger come into the picture and finish the film not knowing anything about him. there some killings and not a whole lot and and the one that are shown are ridiculous. one of the actresses on the set gets electrocuted while filming a scene. another character gets chewed up by a motorboat. and one gets tangled up in a plant before drowning. these writers must have been hard up for excitement. i just have to say that i was not impressed with the filming of the movie. the way that it kept changing from looking low budget back to normal started to become irritating very fast. also and the new cabin by the lake was poorly created. we aren not shown it but only in a few scenes and and the whole thing with the chain in the basement was useless. it worked in the first film only because we were shown the room a lot more and but it do not work in this one. there were too many characters in this sequel. all of them except for a few had no reason to be there. the acting of what little is showed was really bad and. they just do not have a purpose in this movie. all in all and return to cabin by the lake is a sequel picking up from where the first left off. cabin by the lake i can take but this was just not impressive. judd nelson should have avoided this one and so should you. it nothing like the first and it went entirely too slow. nothing happened in the first hour and it continued to drag on for the second. not to mention that the writing was horrible. put this on only if you need some help getting to sleep. so and we see that stanley defies death and is still alive and well. by the way he talks and it sounds like there could be a possible third installment to a movie good just by itself. quit throwing in sequels and we may be alright. (did the film makers not realize that they showed us how they filmed the lake scenes from the first one. they were all done in a tank. never and never reveal the secrets of filming. ). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "a decent sequel and but does not pack the punch of the original. a murderous screenwriter(judd nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel cabin by the lake. still ruthless killing and but movie seems very tongue in cheek. any humor is not of the funny kind. total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times nelson is way over the top. this movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen. this should have happened to this script. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "return to cabin by the lake does not and in any way and stand up to the original. with only one main character (stanley) returning for the sequal and the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. i am a huge fan of the first film and the story line and acting was really good and but this is one movie that i will never again watch. it is basically equal to what the sequals to urban legends and blair witch were like and but with much worse acting. i have personally seen better acting in soap operas and it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. i and in no way and recommend this movie to anyone and watching it will just detract from the first. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i thought hedy burress (who managed to escape from the watery grave of part one) was going to be in part 2 guess not. i just think they should of killed her off like in friday the 13th part 2 (you know what i mean). this movie like scream 3 and and urban legend 2 followed movies within a movie. this was pure crap. the whole movie within a movie crap. bad 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "viewers gushing over everything including the title sequence (now that is funny) would have us believe this is some sort of cinematic miracle and but and trust me folks and this is one of the most embarrassingly bad films you could ever see and and if youre not laughing at it five minutes in and i would say you have lost your sense of humor. david niven plays a doomed and bravado besotted raf pilot who somehow thinks it appropriate to engage an impressionable (female) air traffic controller in an emotional conversation about love and just as he plunging to his certain and fiery death. (isn not it romantic. ) of course and he spared by a quirk of metaphysical chance and and washes up on the beach and just as this same air traffic controller is riding by on her bicycle. (they immediately clinch). looking past the bizarre homo erotic subtexts and (so over the top you really need to refer to them as supertexts and from a naked boy sitting bare butted in the sand playing the movie twilight zone esquire theme on his little flute and to a celestial courier so campy or queen y his makeup is caked on more thoroughly than the ladies) and the most bizarre aspects of the movie are how it weaves such bad caricatures of national and racial stereotypes into a convoluted attempt to argue some kind of point about the universal nature and power of love. we get it fly boys like girls in skirts and heels and and girls like em back and and and apparently and all you have to do is cry a little to make it noble enough for your movie to get 10 stars on imdb. as for the quality of the production and the continuity or editing is poor enough to induce cringing and and the lighting is and perhaps and even worse than that and but you hardly have time to notice because the script is so bad. there are games played with technicolor and (whatever passes for heaven is in black and white if you can figure out the sense in that) and and foreshadowing and (so funny my fellow audience member who usually like movies like this actually cheered and laughed when then the doc motorcycle finally ended up in a fiery wreck) and and freeze motion and (which is funniest of all because the female lead is so poor at standing still you know the stage hands were guffawing off camera). the best shots are the early ones on the beach and but and after that and it all downhill. the (moving like an escalator is moving) staircase is hardly the odessa steps and to say the least and and i would really caution anyone from feeling like they would have to see this lame attempt at movie making on their account. the movie overall is bad enough to be funny and and that about the best thing i can say for 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i saw this movie recently because a friend brought it with him from nyc. after 30 minutes and i said to him and you have got to be kidding. is this some sort of joke. he thought it was good. i told him that i thought it was probably one of the silliest movies ever made. what was it supposed to be. i asked. a propaganda movie made for children. the plot is stupid. the acting is the worst ever for most of the principals and frankly people who look at this sort of tripe and think it has anything to do with life and love or even afterlife and of which it offers an incredibly idiotic view. need some psychiatric help. please and if someone tries to get you to stick this in your dvd or video player and consider it like you would a virus introduced into your computer. it would not destroy your player but it will destroy your evening. if they had made razzies in the 40s and this would have won in every category. (ps. it also goes under the dubious sobriquet of stairway to heaven. ). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "despite a decent first season this series never came close to realizing its potential. set as a prequel to the original star trek series it was doomed almost from the start by an executive producer and rick berman and who felt compelled to artificially limit and constrict the definition of what a star trek series could be (which made this futuristic show increasingly anachronistic from a dramatic standpoint). the actual show runner and brannon braga and do not help matters by his uninspired and tired rehashing of previous trek episodes and careless disregard of the franchise internal mythology (it was painfully obvious early on that he was in it only for the paycheck). never have i seen a series that so consistently did a disservice to a cast of talented actors (jolene blaylock excepted)last so long. it is as if this entire series was produced in bubble existing outside the contemporary television landscape where the audience (even a trekker audience) is more demanding and sophisticated in their dramatic wants and desires. unfortunately it appears as if berman and braga have succeeded in convincing the higher ups at paramount that enterprise suffered from franchise fatigue and that its core audience was did not walk away but was driven off. produce a quality offering that lives up to the high ideals and standards of its predecessors and they (the audience) will come. simply put and in a teevee universe where we are given shows like battlestar represent galactica and the shield the powers that be must give the viewing public a star trek that measures up and is dramatically competitive. it is just that straightforward and easy. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "anybody who has ever been a fan of the original series and or even has a clue about the storyline should be embarrassed by this series. the borg does not come around until q brings the enterprise to the gamma sector and the klingons are never seen until kirk encounters them and the ncc 1701 was the first ship to carry the enterprise name. need i go on. berman and pilliar have made a mockery of gene roddenberry creation. after he died and they only saw $$$$ and just went their own way. no wonder majel barrett was in every single episode of star trek until this series. i do not blame her for not being involved with this mess. poor bakula. he a great actor and as are the entire cast. i like them all and but the storyline is tragic and ignores all of the precedents set by the original series. just check the ratings. i think more people watched deep space 9 (which was untimely canceled). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "okay first of all and i do not sit down to watch the premier of a star trek series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal enterprise episode works1 archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship. 2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged. in all of the episodes i have seen and all of the problems are happening because of archer stupid mistakes. oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing archer and tpol kissing. i was planning to watch that episode but after that i totally gave up on enterprise and turned to tv right off. come on. this is star trek. also what was with the banana slug. in one episode and hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. okay fine and little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. okay that was what i thought until they left it on a desert planet. a banana slug cannot leave in a desert. how dumb are these writersany ways and just saying if enterprise is on dont watch it. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "while it early to say how the series will evolve and i can say that the pilot was less than i thought it would be. there is still potential for the series and however. of course when i first saw voyager i thought it had potential and too but was sorely disappointed. my gut tells me enterprise would not be as bad as voyager and however. as for the impressions of the pilot. the pilot had some good ideas and good themes. i liked the introduction. the show opening credits were interesting and with the progress of exploration and a fitting theme song. scott bakula is excellent in the role of captain. where it fell short for me was largely that the story lacked the feel of setting out on a grand adventure. the plot of the episode itself was more a generic trek story with the themes of exploration and first step towards space merely subplot and subtext. were you to edit out the references to this being the first deep space mission and the plot would be hard to differentiate between the eras of enterprise and tos or tng. the central plot do not reflect or do justice to the grand theme of the series. the plot of launching the first mission would have been grand enough without the action. instead of isolated references to the newness of exploration and they could have been the story. get a little more nostalgic and philosophical about it (oh and for a tv show that once again would make us think). make us feel the excitement of the wind and being on the sea instead of distracting us with a rescue and a plethora of gunplay. there was way too much gunplay. we had the feeling more that humans were the freshmen in an established school. new kids on the block and as opposed to venturing into a largely unknown universe. sadly and the klingons landed on our doorstep instead of us finding them. that meeting could have been far more historic and far more sociological. just how do two such different societies interact. don not just hint about it and show it. i had to think of it more as `trek with an akward crew and limited technology as opposed to `the first brave steps into the unknown. i wanted to see something newer and fresher. the series promises to have a new concept but so far i haven not seen this new and great concept. i will conclude with reiterating the sentiment that the series has potential. there are some interesting characters. bakula is wonderful. blalock has potential. the overall theme is the most interesting since we first saw kirk in a world before apollo 11. if only future episodes can do justice to this grand and wonderful theme and we will have a show which will create new legends. you shoot an arrow into the air. good luck capt. archer. to the producers represent take more risks and make us think. represent ). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i am not a huge star trek fan and but i was looking forward to this. i was intrigued by the pre hype descriptions of the enterprise and its cramped submarine styling and rough edged technology compared to the treks we are used to. i do not see anything all that interesting in this pilot. i found the plot to be convoluted and confusing. i will admit that i did like some of the character development the depictions of the humans as an adolescent species ready to outgrow their britches was entertaining. and that vulcan babe had one hell of an incredible rack. but i do not think i am going to get hooked on this series. 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the earlier part of the film was rather enjoyable but towards the end it became trite. although turturro is an actor i generally like and his luzhin often resembled a bad rain man impression and the portrayal of the genius as a semi autistic man was annoying. overall it seems as if this film is trying to hard and ends up looking pompous in spite of mostly fine performances. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "a movie that attempts to be far smarter than its makers are capable of producing. the movie twists and turns through miriad plot surprises at a desperate attempt to kep the audience guessing and offcourse puncturing the plot with steamy scenes they thought would help it along. james belushi is involved in this pseudo intellectual attempt and just sleep walks through the movie. the same applies for the other actors. the plot is quite silly and tacky. whih in itelf is not such a crime and but towards the end and the tremendous plot twists get very tiresome and boring. however and the movie does manage to generate some interest in the middle. in all worth a lazy watch on a really boring day and but do not fret if you miss this one. a rather lame 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "if you can imagine mickey mouse as a new york street pimp and or john wayne as a communist spy and then you might believe pat boone as a juvenile delinquent on his uncle farm in kentucky and you could conceivably enjoy this movie. this film is so stupid that it isn not even campy for a mid 1950s sexless love story. and the problem is that hollywood made such a big deal about pat boone refusal to kiss a woman not his wife on screen before its release that the audience knows he would not kiss shirley jones so you cannot build any anticipation for the screen consummation of their love. it sort of like watching a western in which the cowboys do not have guns. the story is pointless. even the title song is sung with pained enthusiasm. april love belongs in the worst film bargain bin along with ishtar and plan 9 from outer space. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i really wanted to like this western and being a fan of the genre and a fan of buffalo bill and wild bill hickok and and calamity jane and all of whom are in this story. add to the mix gary cooper as the lead actor and and it sounded great. the trouble was. it wasn not. i found myself looking at my watch just 40 minutes into this and being bored to death. jean arthur character was somewhat annoying and james ellison just did not look like nor act like buffalo bill. cooper wasn not at his best and either and sounding too wooden. this was several years before he hit his prime as an actor. in a nutshell and his western shot blanks. head up the pass and watch another oater because most of em were far better than this one. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i have always admired susan sarandon for her integrity and honesty in her private life as well as her talents as an actor. i therefor found it strange that she would appear in a film that so distorted that facts. her character rescue from the south pole was done by a canadian charter company from edmonton and alberta flying a canadian designed and built twin otter aircraft. the trip had been turned down by the us airforce and navy and coast guard as beyond their capabilities. the same company staged a similar rescue a few years later to bring out a man from the south pole base. i feel that the film fairly represented a very gripping subject and documented a very courageous woman facing a frightening task. i fail to see why the producers would find it necessary ignore the bravery of the rescue pilots and show the rescue plane as a usaf hercules. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "warning spoilers following. superb recreation of the base in antarctica where the real events of the film took place. other than that and libelous. and scandalous. filmed in canada while presumably by a largely canadian crew and cast. i caught the last half of this film recently on global television here in canada. nothing much to say other than how thoroughly appalled i was at what a blatant piece of american historical revisionist propaganda it is while and starring susan sarandon of all people. i can only assume that canadian born director roger spottiswoode was coerced to make the usaf the heroes of the film when in fact the real rescuers where a small private airline based in calgary while kenn borek air. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "ok first of all the video looks like it was filmed in the 80s i was shocked to find out it was released in 2001. secondly the plot was all over the place and right off the bat the story is confusing. had there been some brief prologue or introduction the story would have been better. also i appreciate fantasy but this film was too much. it was bizarre and badly filmed. the scenes did not flow smoothly and the characters were odd. it was hard to follow and maybe it was the translation but it was even hard to understand. i love chinese epic films but if youre looking for a chinese epic fantasy film i would recommend the promise (visually stunning and the plot is interesting and good character development) not this film. beware you will 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "zu warriors most definitely should have been an animated series because as a movie it like watching an old anime on acid. the movie just starts out of nowhere and people just fly around fighting with metal wings and other stupid weapons until this princess sacrifices herself for her lover on a cloud or something. whether this princess is a god or an angel is beyond me but soon enough this flying wind bad guy comes in and kills her while the guy with the razor wings fights some other mystical god or demon or wizard thing. the plot line is either not there or extremely hard to follow you need to be insanely intelligent to get this movie. the plot soon follows this chinese mortal who is called upon by this god to fight the evil flying and princess killing bad guy and soon we have a very badly choreographed uwe boll like fight scene complete with terrible martial arts on a mountain or something. even the visuals are weird some might say they are stunning and colorful but i am going to say they are blurry and acid trip like (yes that a word. ). i watched it both dubbed and with subtitles and both were equally bad and hard to understand. who am i kidding i do not understand it at all. it felt like i was watching episode 30 of some 1980 anime and completely missed how the story began or like i started reading a comic series of 5 at number 4 because i had no clue how this thing started where it was going or how it would end i was lost the entire time. i can honestly say this was one of the worst film experiences ever it was like watching inu yasha at episode 134 drunk. yeah that right you do not know what the hell is going on. don not waste your brain trying to figure this out. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this is not so much film as big budget children television. as far as i can tell and the villain is a giant swarm of chocolate covered espresso beans. this theory seems to be verified by the fact that the subtitles refer to it as insomnia. when it first mentioned that a civilization had been wiped out by insomnia and i thought wow. a nihilistic martial arts film. but no such luck. although you have to consider it experimental cinema when the villain is strangled by an old man long and white eyebrows. zu warriors makes exactly the same amount of sense whether the subtitles are on or off. that not a good sign. i found the special effects to be somewhere between ray harryhausen and xena represent warrior princess. primitive. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "watched this on dvd in original language with english subs. either the subtitling was very poor or the actual dialog doesn not make much of story and give any character development. there are quite a few hk stars in this but the movie doesn not need their presence to make it better or worse. it just bad. the bright and colorful scenes done in cg are attractive for the sheer colors and brilliance but it can get overwhelming before long. if anything this makes me think of a child movie with its nonstop barrage of cg and fight scenes and and crap plot. i am certain i grasped what took place in the film but the whole delivery of the story was rather lousy. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "spielberg loves the smell of sentiment in the morning. but sentiment at the expense of narrative honesty. nobody should love that. lucius shepardthe color purple takes place in the deep south during the early 1900s and and tells the story of celie and nettie and two african american sisters. the film opens with the girls playing in a field of purple flowers and an idyllic haven which is promptly shattered by the appearance of their stepfather. this motif innocence interrupted by men permeates the entire film. the film then launches into a series of short sequences. celie is revealed to have been twice impregnated by her stepfather and gives birth in a dirty barn and has her newborn child taken away and is forced to marry a local widow named albert johnson and a violent oaf who rapes her repeatedly and forcing her to cook and clean and look after his children. all these horrific scenes are given little screen time and and are instead surrounded by moments of pixie dust cinematography and a meddlesome symphonic score and incongruous comedy and overly exuberant camera work. the cumulative effect is like the merging of a disney cartoon and a rape movie and a jarring aesthetic which caused stanley kubrick to remark that the color purple made him so nauseated that he had to turn it off after ten minutes. ten minutes. he lasted a long time. the film is often said to deal which racism and sexism and black culture and but this is not true. alice walker and the author of the novel upon which the film is based and claims to be a bisexual but is actually a closet lesbian. her book is a lesbian fantasy and a story of female liberation and self discovery and which paints men as violent brutes who stymie women. for walker and the only way out of this maze is for women to bond together in a kind of lesbian utopia and black sisterhood and female independence celebrated. spielberg film and however and re frames walker story through the lens of comforting american mythologies. this is a film in which the salvific power of christianity overcomes the natural cruelty of men. a film in which albert finds himself in various ridiculous situations and moments of misplaced comedy inserted to make him look like a bumbling fool. a film in which all the characters are derived from racist minstrel shows and the cast comprised of lecherous men (always beaming with devilish smiles and toothy grins) and stereotypical fat mammies and jazz bands and gospel choirs. this is a film in which black people are naturally childlike and readily and happily accepting their social conditions. a film in which black people are over sexed and carnal sensualists dominated by violent passions. a film in which poverty and class issues are entirely invisible (albert lives in a huge house) and black men are completely inept. this is not the old south and this is the old south as derived from gone with the wind and mgm muscals and song of the south and warner cartoons and halleluha. and banned disney movies. in other words and it the south as seen by a child raised on 50s tv. it all so cartoonish and so racist in the way it reduces these human beings to one dimensional ethnic stereotypes and that black novelist ishmael reed famously likened it to a nazi conspiracy. of course and in typical spielberg fashion the film ends with family bonds being healed. this reconciliation was in walker novel and but spielberg goes further by having every character in the story reconcile with their kin. beyond walker hate letter to black men and spielberg bizarre caricaturing of black life and we are shown nothing of the black community. we have only the vaguest ideas as to how any of these characters make a living and no insight into how they interact with others in their community. instead and spielberg camera jumps about and desperately fighting for our attention (one of celie kitchen contraptions seems like it belongs in a home alone movie) and every emotion over played and the director never stopping to just observe something or to allow a little bit of life to simply pass by. couple this with quincy jones ridiculously white music and and you have one of the strangest films in cinema history represent an angry feminist tract filmed by a white jew in the style of disney and griffith and scored by a black man trying to emulate john williams. problematic too is the lack of white characters. consider this represent the men in this film aren not portrayed as being rough to each other and nor do they dominate women because they are brutalised by a racist society which reduces their manhood. no and they are cruel by nature. and the women and whether quietly suffering like celie or rebellious and tough like her sister and persevere and survive only because the men are too stupid to destroy them. a better film would not have focused solely on the oppression of women as it occurs among the oppressed and rather and it would have shown that it is societal abuse which has led to spousal abuse and that enslaved black women are forced to perform the very same tasks as their male counterparts (whilst still fulfilling traditional female roles) and that african american domestic violence occurs largely because of economic factors and women unable to support themselves and their children alone. and so there a hidden ideology at work here. late in the film one character tells another that since he do not respect his wife and she wound up getting severely beaten and imprisoned by whites. the implication is that blacks need to return to their african roots to restore their own dignity and that it is their fault that whites unjustly crush them. ie respect one another in your poor minority community and you would not run afoul of the dominant white culture. negative a failure to confront sex and lesbianism and inappropriate musical numbers and countless sequence loaded with extraneous visual pizazz and incongruous comic business and emphatic music cues and and wildly hyped emotionality and all contribute to rendering the color purple worthless. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "you may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers. i am sorry and but spielberg do not deserve to win any oscar for this piece and and i think the academy was right in that vote. (other oscars for best actor nominations and such. that i do not know about. but it would be hard to justify and given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product. ) the way spielberg directs this is so contrived and so meddlesome. while watching this movie a distinction made during a film as art course i have taken was screaming at me represent sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. sentimentality is sugary and unreal and a false view of life. this is over the top sentimentality. when in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity and as celie and shug avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from nettie they have found. there are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film represent all the men crowding around miss millie car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away while harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he working on (a cheap slapstick gag) while the whole troop of revelers heading from the jook joint en masse to the chapel and as if magically entranced by the choir singing. on and on. nothing rings true. i even wondered if harpo name was chosen purposefully because it his wife sophia real name and oprah and backwards. spielberg isn not above such cuteness. it not that spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. schindler list was amazing and deeply touching for me and and i greatly admire saving private ryan too for its realism and even if the story is a bit contrived. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this is really terrible. the only redeeming feature about this movie is that the next time people ask me what is the worst vampire movie i have ever watched and i would have a suitable reply. i think it is filmed on 35 mm so it is already tacky like hell. i do not have bothered commenting but i noticed some fanboys (probably connected to the movie) had claimed that this was the best movie since the matrix. let me debunk the myths and lies. there is nothing good in the movie. everything yells tacky. the actress is ugly. the fight choreography is the worst i have ever seen. the fight scenes are unbelievably amateurish. imagine a girl flailing her arms around in a circle helplessly and delivering weak kicks which do not hurt a kitten. obviously and the director just pulled people off the street to give them roles in the movie. i know the director did not have much budget for the movie but still better movies have been made on smaller budget before. unforgivable. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "dude and really. where have you guys been the past 20 years and this is shocking in all kind of ways and horror . this is a joke and there is nothing wrong with being low budget and but this is a laugh and if you want to look at the classics and freaks of tod browning and the victims of dracula and frankenstein and the undying monster and ernest thesiger and paul wegener the golem and the passengers of the ghost train and you can not compare it and it gives it a bad name and bad acting and bad screenplay etc. total waist of money and free time and have watched a lot of movies and were as horror is my all time favorite and i really am speechless and have nothing more to say that please do not do the effort to watch something so daft and please understand. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "well and you know the rest. this has to be the worst movie i have seen in a long long time. i can only imagine that stephanie beaham had some bills to pay when taking on this role. the lead role is played by (to me) a complete unknown and i would imagine disappeared right back into obscurity right after this turkey. bruce lee led the martial arts charge in the early 70 and since then fight scenes have to be either martial arts based or at least brutal if using street fighting techniques. this movie uses fast cuts to show off the martial arts and however and even this can not disguise the fact that the lady doesn not know how to throw a punch. an average 8 year old boy would take her apart on this showing. sorry and the only mystery on show here is how this do not win the golden raspberry for its year. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i am in iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. we also have access to plenty of pirated movies and this gem came along with 11 other movies and and this is easily the worst i have seen in a long time. i have seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn not take itself too seriously and but really and i think that a cover up for the fact that its horrible. it not tongue in cheek and the writers really thought they were improving on the movie blade. this movie is just one notch above vampire assassin and which if you haven not seen and i recommend. at least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you will laugh harder than you thought possible. this is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting and to cliché visual (ie opening credits) and to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn not even get blanks for the guns and which may have to do with where the movie was filmed and but if youre going to use effects and make them close to accurate. as for the cast and it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. once again and like ron hall in vampire assassin and do not let stunt folk act and they can not. also and the comment about this being a return of old vampire movies. no and it not. this is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. buffy the vampire slayer and blade and underworld and theyre all about some super star fighting the vampires. this is the newest vampire genre and with bad blood and fake screams and and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie and or friends of the cast. but what do i care and i paid 33 cents for it. anyway and to wrap this up and someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie and i give them credit because it better than i could do. of course i also know i can not make movies so i do not try. i do know how to watch movies though. i work 12 hour nights and 6 days a week and i have seen several thousand in the year i have been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "valentine is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think halloween and friday the 13th and scream and and i know what you did last summer). it certainly isn not as good as those movies that i have listed about and but it better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first friday the 13th film. one of those films was the 1981 canadian made my bloody valentine and which i hated alot. valentine is a better film than that one and but it not saying much. the plot represent a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up and then theyre picked off one by one. the killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. but is it him. or could it be somebody else. valentine has an attractive cast which includes denise richards and david boreanaz and marley shelton and jessica capshaw and and katherine heigl. they do what they can with the material they have got and but a lackluster script doesn not really do them any justice. there are some scary moments throughout and however. (out of four). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "there one line that makes it worth to rent for angel fans. everyone else represent this is just a very bad horror flick. the female characters are typical horror movies females. they are wooden and annoying and dumb. you are glad when they are killed off. long live the strong female character in a 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "there are so many puns to play on the title of the spectacularly bad valentine that i do not know where to begin. i will say this though while here is a movie that makes me long for the complexity of the valentine cards we used to give out in elementary school. you know and the ones with batman exclaiming youre a super crime fighting valentine. valentine is a slasher movie without the slightest hint of irony and one of the few horror movies in recent years that ignores the influence of scream. the villain is omniscient and nigh invulnerable. the heroes are easily scared when people run around corners and grab them by the shoulders screaming heyijustleftmycoatbehind. the score is more overbearing than norman bates mother. the flimsy plot follows several childhood friends and now grown up and extremely curvaceous. since the film gives them nothing else to do and they stand around and wait until a masked stalker kills them one by one. this stalker appears to be former nerd jeremy melton and who was constantly rejected by women and beaten by men in high school. with valentine day approaching and the women begin receiving scary cards foretelling their doom. melton seems like the obvious suspect. only problem is and as numerous characters warns and in thirteen years melton could have changed his appearance to look buff and handsome. so (insert terrified gasp here) everyone is a suspect. here problem one. in order to have any sense of suspense while watching valentine and you have to accept a reality in which a high school nerd is capable of becoming david boreanaz. nerds do not turn into angel when they grown up and they turn into older and balder nerds. he not a terrible actor and but the script and by no less than four writers and gives him and the rest of the cast nothing to do but scream and make out. denise richards (the bustiest actress in hollywood never to star in baywatch) is especially exploited while most shamefully in the blatant excuse to get her in a bathing suit just before a crucial suspense scene. note to self represent always bring a bathing suit to a valentine day party. just because it february doesn not mean you might not feel like taking a little dip. the slasher in valentine dresses in head to toe black with a cherub mask. here problem number two. the filmmakers clearly thought this would be a disturbing image to have on the head of someone who whacking people in the face with hot irons. plain and simple and it not. instead and it just made me wonder how a guy with a mask that covers his entire face and including his eyes and ears and can move so stealthily without bumping his shins on chairs or tables. then again and given the things the cupid killer does and maybe he can teleport and his eyes are on his hands. not only is the movie bad and it isn not even sure who the killer is while the final twist is more huh. than hah. when youre not scratching your head youre yawning and then groaning and then searching for the nearest exit. do not watch this movie. even if youre alone on valentine day and find something and anything and else to do. you will be glad you did. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "there is no way to describe how really and really and really bad this movie is. it a shame that i actually sat through this movie and this very tiresome and predictable movie. what wrong with it. acting represent there is not one performance that is even remotely close to even being sub par (atleast they are all very pretty). soundtrack (songs) represent if we get orgy on the soundtrack then everyone will know that they are watching a horror film. while soundtrack (score) represent okay and but anyone with a keyboard can make an okay soundtrack these days. don not even get me started on the what the hell. moments and here are a few represent killer can move at the speed of light door opens actress turns and no one is there and turns back and there is something sitting in front of her. while out of now where the killer shows up with a power drill and a really big one. the filmmakers get points for at least plugging it in and but can i really believe that the killer took the time to find the power outlet to plug it in. i feel like one of the guards at the beginning of holy grail and want to say where would you get the power drill. i could go on and on about how bad this film is but i only have 1000 words. i will give this 2 out of ten stars. one star for making me laugh and another star for all the cleavage. seriously and do not waste your time with this one. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "in an attempt to bring back the teen slasher genre that was taken away by spoofs like scary movie and shriek if you know what i did last friday the 13th and valentine fails. why did people like halloween. because it was original and new and went beyond anything that ever been done. why did they like scream. because at least it made sense. valentine is just a stupid slasher flick that has hardly any gore what so ever. the plot is so similar to halloween and urban legend it not funny. and the moment the killer comes on screen and you know who it is and it just sssssssssssooooooooooooo predictable. the teen slasher genre is dead get over it. 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "firstly and there are some good things about this film and but it all cliche slasher stuff combined with a teen movie. in the advertising of this movie and that i have seen and a large emphasis was on the fact that denise richards is in it and but she a poor actress and and not as good looking as people try to make her out to be (not that that has anything to do with the movie). and what with that look she gives everyone. perhaps it part of the character and but like i said and the acting. still and the writing is fine. you know who it is all throughout the movie and and you can almost predict what is about to happen and but not in an irritating way. i think the book it based on is probably good and judging by the plot line and but next time i will read the book to find out rather than watch 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this stalk and slash turkey manages to bring nothing new to an increasingly stale genre. a masked killer stalks young and pert girls and slaughters them in a variety of gruesome ways and none of which are particularly inventive. it not scary and it not clever and and it not funny. so what was the point of 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "valentine is a horrible movie. this is what i thought of it representacting represent very bad. katherine heigl can not act. the other weren not much better. story represent the story was okay and but it could have been more developed. this movie had the potential to be a great movie and but it failed. music represent yes and some of the music was pretty cool. originality represent not very original. the name `paige prescott recognize prescott. bottom line represent don not see valentine. it a really stupid movie. 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this movie was rented by a friend. her choice is normally good. i read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. although itwas a horror movie. which i do not prefer. but no horror came to mind while watching the movie. it was a dull and not very entertaining movie. the appearance of denise richardswas again a pleasure for the eye. but that it. we (the four of us)were a little bit disappointed. but feel free to see this movie andjudge it yourself. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the good represent i liked this movie because it was the first horror movie i have seen in a long time that actually scared me. the acting wasn not too bad and and the cupid killer was believable and disturbing. the bad represent the story line and plot of this movie is incredibly weak. there just wasn not much to it. the ways the killer killed his victims was very horrifying and disgusting. i do not recommend this movie to anyone who can not handle gore. overall represent a good scare and but a bad story. 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "its plain to see why the makers of scary movie found it so easy to spoof these teen slasher movies. they are so unbelievably formulaic. and if valentine had been released a year or so earlier and i am sure they would have been spoofing this film too that if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the screams and i know what you did last summers and and urban legends. valentine offers nothing new to this genre and except a better than usual ending which and of course and leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. as always and a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women and killing the main character friends and one by one and in typically over the top style. lots of t and a on display and no character development and bad acting and and overly elaborate bloodshed. the thing i can not stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as who done its. the thing is that they aren not because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked and and tells the main character who friends have now all been murdered. usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character mother uncle fishing partner kicked his friend father dog). everybody still left alive throughout the film is a uspect and but they are more red herrings than suspects. as we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed. valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. spoiler. (mini spoiler anyway) in valentine the motive was not revealed and but more and left for you to think about given that the film do not quite conclude in the typical teen slash way. the issue is only part resolved and and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. will the killer want more and or were the demons truly vanquished. this still do not make valentine a good film and instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual and which still doesn not count for much. to anybody thinking of making another film along these lines and please do not. originality is so important and and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "spoilers spoilers are all teen slasher flicks suffering from a drought of originality. it awfully seems so. first of all and this is a noble premise that could have been utilized well. a rejected young nerd who grows up and stalks and murders all the girls who tortured the hell out of him when he was in junior high. can not say you had nothing to work with. but this film goes through the same motions as all the other recent slashers. everything from the score to the camera angles allow us to predict exactly when a false alarm is coming and exactly when the killer will strike. we know the pattern by now. these stupid slasher movies push the credibility envelope more and more by the minute. let me ask you something represent who and in their right mind and is going to surprise a friend of theirs in a dark and dreary morgue in the middle of the night and just surprise her out of the blue while she all alone and surrounded by corpses. does that make any damn sense at all. valentine is only occasionally innovative. one good shot involves the butchering of denise richards character. she gets trapped inside a pool and the killer pokes at her with a chainsaw. there some good songs in the soundtrack and including one cool track by orgy. the music video is contained in the special features section on the dvd. even the acting is mediocre at best. the actors all sleep through their roles. of course and david boreanaz is often stoic and even in his portrayal as the title character on angel. denise richards is a fine actress and though and and she keeps a stoneface throughout the movie. valentine is just like you would expect represent pretentious and implausible and forgettable and cheesy and without a good scare in sight. don not even bother. my score represent 4 (out of 10). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "here was no effort put into valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film and a sub genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so. i have heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies and including everything from halloween to prom night to carrie and and as much as i hate to be redundant and the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything. the punch bowl over poor jeremy head early in the film is so obviously taken from carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`hey everyone and this is the director and and the following is my carrie rip off scene. enjoy. ). but that just a suggestion. (spoilers) the film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured. we get to know some girl briefly at the beginning and she gets killed and people wonder in the old oh but that stuff only happens to other people tone and and then they start to get killed. the problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful and but they have no idea how to do it. take jason and for example. here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had and and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor jeremy was treated and he is assumed to carry some significance. besides that and and more importantly and he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade and and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious valentine day cards. it is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects and and jason is a perfect example of the effort and but not such a good example of a successful effort. sure and i thought for a while that he might very well be the killer and but that not the point. we know from early on that he is terrible with women and which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film and but then in the middle of the film and he appears at a party and smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls and and then gives them a hateful look and walks away and disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation. we already know he is a cardboard character and but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him. on the positive side and the killer true identity was and in fact and made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also and unfortunately and yet another rip off. early in the film and when shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel and he makes no sound and suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female and rather than a male as everyone suspects. but then for the rest of the film and we just have this stolid and relentless and unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife. director jamie blanks (who and with all due respect and looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by halloween. this is and of course and completely unnecessary and because it so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film. the only difference between the killer in valentine and michael meyer is that michael mask was so much more effective and he do not have a problem with nosebleeds. this stuff is shameless. at the end and there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and the killer is mask removal) and but then we see adam nose start to bleed as he holds kate and his often reluctant girlfriend and and we know that he been the killer all along. nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act and and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film. valentine is not scary (i watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight and and i have been afraid of the dark for as long as i can remember and and even i wasn not scared) and and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren not so obvious that they were just going to die. i remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater faster than battlefield earth) and but the end result is the same old thing. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this movie in away was super clever. it theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. valentine makes zero attempt to be original. what is valentine anyway. it a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. there is nothing original in valentine. i only saw it once and and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1. prom night 2. carrie 3. scream 4. any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody. i know there is more and but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn not grab them as fast as they came. valentine had no chance of being a good movie. how come every horror movie has to have a suprise killer and people you do not care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. one minute a nice girl turns into an evil b ch and then she an insecure woman and and so on and son on. normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore and once again valentine doesn not have this. it was as if they tried to make it pg 13 but failed and so they left the edit. do not see this overly inspired and rip off unless you hate yourself and and you want to die. half (3) j. leonard rollins . " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview and else i would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. i mean haven not we had enough of this yet. scream and scary movie at least did not take them self serious. the plot sucks and and the acting is the worst i have seen. (only godzilla can compare and which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst i have seen in the cinema with this one. )there is so many plot holes in the story and and the girls are so alike and that you do not even now who has been killed and and who has not. (and you do not care. ) the only of them i knew in advance was denise and and she was the most talent less actress i have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie. stay as far away from this movie as possible. ( 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "in 1955 and tobias schneerbaum disappeared in the peruvian amazon. one year later he walked out of the jungle. naked. it took him 45 years to go back. supposedly and keep the river on your right is a modern cannibal tale. in reality and anyone looking for some insight into cannibalism will be sadly disappointed. the first half of the movie is more like a travel log of new ginuea and mostly touting the native art. the second half relies on still photos of a peruvian cannibal tribe and but really that about it. unless of course and you are interested in home movies of a jewish wedding and or schneerbaum introducing his former male lovers. i give up. big disappointment and not really a modern cannibal tale. merk. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "so and where are the cannibals. those intrigued by the title and the real cannibal appeal of this film will be let down. instead and we are shown a strange man and his re visiting of a papua new guinea village full of natives and one of whom was his lover several decades prior. the man and tobias schneebaum is new york jewish as they come and somehow and this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes. there are no real cannibals here represent only stories relayed by some of the natives and by tobias himself. not all together a bad film. very interesting and great cinematography. schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from western civilization as one can get. it just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary. negative and kids. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "well and where to begin. i guess i can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. call me ignorant for not knowing of schneebaum book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that i have been living under some kind of a rock and but do not blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this documentary is actually a companion to said book. yeah and i felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why i sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a modern cannibal tale. i mean and am i a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes. i certainly do not expect an hour and forty five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. i certainly do not expect the insipid directing and i most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at tobias schneebaum and all of his off putting glory. schneebaum is indeed unlikable. the old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn not even that interesting a character to fill a story. oh really. he was a cannibal. ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding schneebaum dirty past. the only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in peru and say that he had a small piece. that it and folks. ninety minutes of bull later and tobias schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. it like calling a movie the life of a true don juan only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played just the tip. unbelievable. the directing is and indeed and superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. alright and i understand that i do not read schneebaum volume before watching his celluloid tale of it and but i can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. one minute schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he going on and on about how he can not drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. i mean and jesus and can you at least slam his back story to the first part while follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to peru. also represent i do not particularly care much for schneebaum insipid little quips on life and living and but i at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. if i hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle i do not expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. absurd. another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. while some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story and the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels. the bottom line and here and is that tobias schneebaum is a fraud. pure and simple. i know that i haven not read the book and but i am still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. this documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of schneebaum work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a dvd. schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy and striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un riveting. if youre looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism and turn away because keep the river to your right is an embarrassingly hilarious self serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight jacket and a gag. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i am curious is really two films in one half of it is the sexual experimental side of lena and the other half is her curiosity with political or socialism. whatever the director intention and the two do not really mesh together. the director should have just stuck with the romantic side of lena and made a separate movie for the politics. there is a bizarre mixture of political or war rallies and dr. king and serious political interviews and flopping breasts and and pubic hair. the film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie. other than the interesting sex scenes and you will be bored dry watching this film. unlike many other reviewers and i think the nude or sexual scenes are overdone for what it is. if you want to see real porn and i am sure there are better choices. the pervasive nudity is a major distraction from whatever plot there is. i think the cast did a fine job however. they played their parts believably. there is little of the over the topness i am so used to seeing in the american films during this 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this film and once sensational for its forward thinking politics and depictions of free love and sexual liberation and has been reduced by time to a mere curiosity. it seems absurd now that this mostly boring little film had been banned and seized by governments in many countries. given how socialistic sweden eventually became and the radicalism of its politics and once controversial and appear naive and almost mainstream four decades later. and its sex scenes and at one time the subject of sensational obscenity trials and look pretty tame in a modern context. nevertheless and the film and accompanying documentaries detailing its many controversies and influences remains marginally watchable as an early reliquary of 60 youth rebellion. one part of the film that still holds up represent its self consciousness with respect to the fourth wall. every once in a while and the filmmakers film themselves making the film. the satiric playfulness of this still elicits a chuckle. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the plot line of no one sleeps is not a bad idea and and the subject matter is of quite a bit of interest. but and throughout watching this film and we were saying aloud and these filmmakers go to the trouble of finding good locations and the lighting is good and makeup and hair are good. why is the sound so bad. throughout the film the sound was echoy and garbled and much of the dialog was unintelligible. there is some good acting in this film and and i think jim thalman is really a good actor. this story and with some of the same actors and would have been worth doing as a high budget film. i just can not reiterate enough if you have a limited budget and dedicate more to good sound. sound is as much a part of a film as the image and and it worth doing right. could have earned a 6. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "hail bollywood and men directors . really this is the ultimate limit in utter sacrifice made by indian woman . viewing the current state of affairs in india where the wives are becoming more vicious day by day and are very possessive about their husbands the directors . also can be called uncle scars (refer movie the lion king) came up with a very new concept on how both the kept and the wife can live together happily ever after sharing everything between themselves . including the spermikins . story line represent married couple very happy but accidentally a mishap happens and wife has a miscarriage lost the foetus along with the capacity of ever becoming a mother . now in in india and the in laws usually drive away the daughter in law if she fails to give them an heir . so the wife hits upon a major plan surrogate mother. but the scientists intervened sure artificial insemination no said the artist (director actually) neighbourhood will come to know that the daughter in law is barren so they are going for surrogate mother . neighbours . society . gosh the same ones who watch fashion tv day and night watching girls between the age group of 14 to 40 . al in bras and panties well those neighbors suddenly take an upper hand in family planning and decision making . so the wife sends away her husband to a beer bar where girls are dancing on the stage all mostly uneducated and illiterate but men love such women as they can satisfy their egos a lot . he hires the lead dancer in the pub asks her to bear his baby in exchange for money she agrees she comes home becomes pregnant wife and kept both co exist in the same house in the mean time the prostitute also gets a taste of household life so much caring people around she misses them all and cries silently . in the mean time no one in the family comes to know that the real daughter in law is roaming around with a pillow beneath her petticoat . the mother or other elderly people never took her for check ups nor did they try to feel the baby movements in the womb . " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this movie is traditional bollywood fare as far as the star power and sentimentality and love triangle of emotions. what really bothered me about this movie was the makers absurd notion of surrogate mother. a whore who conceives a child with someone after have sex with the man (of the family desiring a child) is not a surrogate mother. neither is she a good candidate for a surrogate mother. i have seen indian movies and television shows that made 10 to 15 years ago that dealt with this issue more intelligently. the whole concept of the movie is ridiculous and absolutely implausible. i realize that most bollywood movies aren not meant to be plausible and but they do not pretend to be either. this movie wants us to emote along with the characters and but this can not done with such a ridiculous and contrived conflict. i would have expected better from abbas and mustan. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i wonder if there is any sense of sense in this movie. its a big joke. good. its entertaining . you get to see the most stupid plot played very seriously in the form of a film . i wonder which audience group this movie is basically targeted to. priety (a pros) plays a surrogate mom for a happy couple salman or rani who want a child but can not. i wonder how it would be if this drama was a real life take off from a real couple life. rani appears happy with another pretty lady in her house who has been brought in to make a child for her and salman. she cares for priety and tries pushing her husband salman to preity so they may have some romance. when will the audience get fed up of salman nakhras. though a good past time and this movie is unbearable. absurd. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the tv guide calls this movie a mystery. what is a mystery to me is how is it possible that a culture that can produce such intricate and complex classical music and brilliant mathematicians cannot produce a single film that would rise above the despicable trash level this film so perfectly represents. this is bollywood at its best or worst and i honestly cannot tell the difference. nauseatingly sweet and kitschy clichés on every level and story line and situations and dialog and music and choreography. to put it bluntly and you must be a retard to enjoy it. i watched it to satisfy my cultural curiosity and but there were times when i had to walk away from it and because i could not take it any more. the only redeeming quality of the movie is the exquisite beauty of the leading actresses. . " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: ". but the keyword here is usually. i have been known to adore movies everyone thinks are dumb. but in the world of b rated movies and this one is z rated. absolutely ridiculous. the thing i respect about most of my favorite b rated movies are that they do not take themselves too seriously. the makers of movies like that sort of treat the movie lightly and even if it a heavy topic. i get the impression and however and that the producers of this movie took themselves way to seriously and like they were putting together a 10 star classic and complete with poor attempts at poignant lines and dumb camera shots. nevertheless and despite all this and i still gave it negative stars and as i am biased towards movies like this. if youre a b rated fan and however and i would try too hard to find this one. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "don not even ask me why i watched this. the only excuse i can come up with that i was sick with bronchitis and too weak to change the channel. positive. it too terrible for words and the movie that is and not the bronchitis. the acting is deplorable and richard grieco hams it up as a trigger happy and gun slinging serial killer with a penchant for knocking off cops. nick mancuso phones in a performance as the cop on his trail and nancy allen manages to put in the only sympathetic role in the entire film. the script is dismal and peppered with clichéd lines and are you ready and pardner. purrs richard grieco to every single one of his victims. dire. avoid. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the french film extension du domaine de la lutte directed by iconoclast film maker philippe harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer michel houellebecq. he has also worked on this film scenario. according to british cinema magazine sight and sound and it is also known as whatever. this film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for french cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers. the film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character. this makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. the basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend. instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall. beware representsome women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "two years ago and on berlin film festival we watched the amos kollek movie sue in the panorama program and with a wonderful anna thomson in the leading part. it a film about loneliness and sex and and how the one thing is compensated by the other. in the same section on the festival now we have to complain the superfluous antithesis of sue and extension du domaine de la lutte and which now tries to convince us that loneliness and having no sex is one and the same problem. but unfortunately we can not sympathize with our hero (how he is called by the story teller) and because he is unnecessarily and incomprehensibly tired of company and himself. own fault and i am sorry. i can not understand him. not enough and the writer or director or actor want us admitting to him and that it not his destroyed self consciousness or the passivity of his personality and what brought him so far and but the rotten society and its image of sexuality. yes and there are some deeper insights about gender relations and but we would not follow him so far. and the point is and that there is rather any sign of reflection about his own portion to the fate and having no sex. who do not notice yet and it a quite depressing film. in the beginning and there had been some starts to be more accurate in sketching the situation. at the bed store the hero speaks about the hindrances buying a new bed. perhaps it too broad getting up the stairs and you have to stay at home half a day. this is a satire about a character and who doesn not know taking the life and heart in hands and doing something. the movie doesn`t follow this path and but handles his characters with helplessness. nobody believes and that our hero is able to instigate tisserand for a murder. too dull and too kind and too passive (not to mention tisserand complex while he has an inhibition and but he couldn not be and of course and a murderer of women. ). to finish represent there are women and the world and it not a device of a modern sexualized society. help you as you can and but do not follow the messages and the wisdom of this movie and which announces bankruptcy to human relationships and without seizing the real conflicts within. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "blank check is one of those kids movies that could have been a great suspense thriller for the kids but instead it a tired lame home alone ripoff that isn not worth a dime. quigley is a criminal who just escaped from jail and gets his hidden million dollars from a big score and then we meet preston a frustrated kid whose room is taken over by his brothers to start a business and obviously dad treats his brothers better because they make money the same day he goes to a kid birthday party and since his dad is a cheapo he goes on little kids rides while the other kids go on roller coasters then he receives a birthday card and a check of 11 bucks how cheap is this family. so he goes to the bank to open an account and meets the gorgeous shea stanley were her parents mets fans. he finds out he needs 200 to open a account meanwhile quigley gives his million to his banker friend and finds out the bills are marked so he will send a lackey named juice to get the unmarked ones when preston leaves his bike gets run over by quigley he about to write a check when he spots the cops and bolts back home his parents scolded him about his busted up bike and gets grounded what. their kid got almost run over and they worried about a bike. so preston forges a million dollar check via his computer and comes back only to be escorted to the banker thinking that he juice he gives preston the money but the real juice came and realized they been duped by a kid. so preston buys a mansion under the name macintosh gets a limo driver who says unfunny jokes and goes on a epic shopping spree then he spots shea and talks about opening his account kid youre loaded and youre talking about opening an account. we soon realized shea is actually an fbi agent tracking down quigley and his two other accomplice then he told his cheapy dad he got a job working for mr macintosh and spends the day riding go karts playng vr games and hanging out with his limo driver buddy then he goes out on a date with shea in a fancy restaurant what a 10 year old wining and dining a 20 something fbi agent. afterwards he takes her to a street geyser and playing around in the water messing up shea 300 dollar dress yet she takes it well if this was a bit realistic she would slap him for messing up her expensive dress so quigley and the others still mad interrogates a little kid and quickly spills the beans and preston is being chased by quigley in a scene taken from the original script and afterwords he is hosting mr macintoshs birthday which is really his birthday when he discovers he couldn not pay for the party he sits in his chair and dad talks to macintosh which he doesn not know it his son he talking to and talks about preston should be a real kid and has his whole childhood ahead of him and wants preston to go home early what. an hour ago you were grilling him about his finances. so preston asks everyone to leave and sits alone pondering when quigley and the others break in to the house to make preston pay and so he faces then in a finale that rips off home alone quigley gets spun around in a ball while preston is driving a go kart juice gets hit in the groin and more antics ensue until the trio get preston cornered and when it seem all hope is lost shea and a bunch of swat guys come to save the day and so quigley and his crew get sent to jail but is there any hope for preston and shea. there is and she kisses him in the lips what. what. what. a grown woman kissed a kid in the lips. come on is she mentally disabled. i mean an fbi agent who knows the country laws would risk her career to kiss a kid. she could get arrested on the spot. and the most creepiest part of all is that isn not goodbye and she will see him in 6 or 7 years. oh dear and so he comes home to his family celebrating his birthday so the moral of the story is love and respect can be bought. what are they smoking. the bottom line is that is a waste of time the morals are whacked it flat as a tortilla the kid is annoying the villains are lame the comic relief isn not funny the brothers are unlikable the dad is even worse the romantic subplot is creepy the plot shallow and the only saving grace is the cinematography from bill pope which went on to shoot the matrix trilogy and two of the spider man films so people do not waste your money and go watch home alone instead. this has been a samuel franco review. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "blank check is a movie that i saw on tv one day and like most movies they air on tv blank check wasn not that good. first of all no one i have ever met has seen blank check and that includes people that grew up in the 90s. also blank check would not be remembered in the 00s either simply due to the fact that it will be overshadowed by pixar films. i do not call blank check a bad film but its not really entertaining either. (or at least it isn not to anyone over the age of 6) blank check isn not a entertaining film because nothing about it is original. everything just makes you go what haven not i seen this before. blank check rips off and tries to cash in on everything from richie rich to home alone (which strangely enough both have macaulay culkin in it) blank check isn not a bad movie and but it deserves to fade into obscurity. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i saw this movie once a long time ago and and i have no desire to ever see it again. this movie is about preston waters and a hard lucked preteen and who always seems to be overlooked by his family and who always seems to be short on cash. all this changes when a bank robber runs over preston bike and passes him a blank check as compensation. preston uses the check to withdraw $1 million from the bank (ironically and the money belongs to the bank robber who gave him the check). preston then buys a mansion and says that he working as the assistant of a mysterious and wealthy backer named mr. macintosh (named after his computer). after that and he just goes crazy with the money. on paper and this sounds like a great idea. however and on screen and it is one of the emptiest movies i have ever seen. for one thing and it too unbelievable. i know some parts of the movie were meant to be incredible and but i draw the line at a twelve year old boy going out with a thirty year old woman and and being put in charge of a imaginary person small fortune. also and this was a shallow movie with weak acting and a predictable plot line and characters who are less than memorable. the characters were either cheesy and over the top and annoying and or underdeveloped. but juice was a funny character. if youre looking for a good movie to watch with your family and skip this one. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the worst movie i have seen in a while. yeah its fun to fantasize and but if that is what you are looking for and i suggest you see brewsters millions. this was just terrible and corny and terrible at being corny. unless you are five or like terrible movies and do not see this one. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "blank check is easily one of the worst films of the nineties. the plot is completely pointless while its overtones of lonliness are pathetic. do you really believe a twelve year old acting as a personal assistant for a millionaire could accomplish everything in this film and like buying a mansion for a mere $300 grand. the notion and let alone the bargain basement price and will only be believed by the most gullible viewers. please and respect your intelligence and do not watch this awful and awful 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i almost called hbo and demanded my money back for the month just because they have been airing this movie. i can just see the movie execs sitting around going and okay and we need to come up with something that just like home alone and only we will add a bunch of cash for the kid and hire cut rate actors and and oh yeah and we will make it a lot less funny. okay and maybe not the last part and but that basically what you have got here. not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. and as a movie for kids. forget it. i do not let my kids see this and not necessarily because of bad taste jokes and but because i do not want them to say and what were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage and dad. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this movie is really goofy. i saw it as an 11 year old and and even then i thought it was pretty ridiculous. i would only recommend this film to kids under the age of 12. i really do not care for it and but i do think that it answers some very good questions that kids need to be aware of and such as represent 1)does money buy happiness. 2)should i lie (to my parents) about things i think they do not approve of. 3)does money buy friendships. 4)is money everything. 5)shouldn not i tell my parents when someone is trying to hurt me. granted and these are very unrealistic situations and but i do think that if parents discussed these issues with their children and maybe they should watch this video as well and in order to show or scare their kids that lies have the potential to get you hurt. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "a young boy comes into a lot of money and promptly begins to live it up. unfortunately and the man whose money it really is happens to be very bad. he wants his loot back. when he discovers who has the bucks and he begins trying to get it back. he keeps getting foiled by this little kid who is just lucky enough to keep from falling into the evil man hands. sounds familiar and i will bet. very predictable and not interesting at all. come up with something a bit different and ok guys. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "bad actors and bad filming and choppy dialog and shallow characters and but then again it was a bad premise in the first place. basically and an 11 year old who is bullied because he has very little money is given a blank check by a moronic criminal. of course and the 11 year old happens to possess enough technology and intelligence to purchase a house and cash a check for 1 and 000 and 000 dollars and and even foil three bumbling idiots and reminiscent of the three stooges. preston blake is an annoying and obnoxious and boy and who decides that and when written a blank check by a complete stranger and he will take advantage of the situation as best as he can. in other words and he wanders into a bank and hands a teller a check he makes in his printer and and miraculously walks out with a million bucks in cash. preston is also apparently capable of reaching incredible speeds on his bicycle and due to the fact that a man driving a jaguar after preston and his 10 speed could not catch him and even when preston jumped a row of cars. of course and with every hokey adventure movie and there has to be hot heroine. in this case our hot heroine is a child molesting fbi agent who dates the eleven year old preston and and promises another date when he turns 17. however and the absolute worst aspect of this film was not its casting and nor its sloppy dialog and such as the only other way i could think of skinning a cat is to stick a hose up it butt and then pick up the fur. it was and rather and the entire fact that nobody in the entire film seemed to realize that the fbi does not give a damn about random people . what i have failed to explain is that preston uses the alias macintosh to masquerade as an entrepreneur of sorts. of course and the fbi finds this intriguing and sends our young heroine after preston and who uses his 11 year old wit to first scream when lobsters fall on his face and then treat her to hamburgers and finishing with a ridiculous romp through a cemented area where water jettison from the ground. our heroine fails to realize during this whole adventure that the criminal the fbi is pursuing is slipping and sliding right behind the two and as they make their way to preston limousine and complete with a 1 dimensional driver who never fails to provide cheap and 3rd rate laughs that the whole family can choke on. overall represent negative is incredibly gracious for this film. i do not see how it only has a 4. negative . " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "bad plot and bad dialogue and bad acting and idiotic directing and the annoying porn groove soundtrack that ran continually over the overacted script and and a crappy copy of the vhs cannot be redeemed by consuming liquor. trust me and because i stuck this turkey out to the end. it was so pathetically bad all over that i had to figure it was a fourth rate spoof of springtime for hitler. the girl who played janis joplin was the only faint spark of interest and and that was only because she could sing better than the original. if you want to watch something similar but a thousand times better and then watch beyond the valley of the dolls. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "larry buchanan. yep and same guy who did attack of the the eye creatures and two (count em represent two) conspiracy movies about marilyn monroe. he to blame and here. adding onto his ever growing pile of folders left over from oliver stone eh i grew out of it conspiracy drawer and here down on us (i. e. beyond the doors) which is the working definition of historical inaccuracy. forget everything you thought you knew about jimi hendrix and janis joplin and jim morrison and says big lar and cuz this is the real deal. y ee and the three big names in rock of the 60s were killed by the government because they were subversives or counter productive to truth and justice and the american way and or sumpthin like that there. i knew it all along. anyway and three people (chatman and meryl and wolf) who look eerily like their real life shadows (that is and if you completely close your eyes and turn your backs and walk five miles away from them) show that instead of their recorded deaths and the good old us of a put hits out on them. yep and it the truth. man and i cannot believed i watched this movie. it facts and when not stretching credibility to the snapping point and are ludicrous while the acting makes tv commercials look like high drama and if you honestly watch it through to the end and you deserve the twist ending. you really and really do while i swear. genius. but like the man said represent rock and roll is dead long live rock and roll. not this flick and though. no stars for down on us. and that the movie audience describing the film and by the way. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "what ends up killing this movie is its self consciousness and among other things. here a short list represent 1. irreverent behavior. when the beatles came over and injected their brand of quirky and irreverent behavior or humor and it was greeted as fresh. that was over 4 decades ago. get over it. 2. false sophistication. spewing out base and quasi socio political isms is hard ground to make work comically. ask woody allen. 3. the post modern i am hard on this phony world and yes and i recognize it in myself snake eating itself used as illustration with another animal in the film itself. is such a retread. 4. smarmy and smug drollness. 5. amateurish writing and acting and direction. ever seen student films. a victim of itself and about the only thing i can say positive is that it at least has a sense of itself and and sheesh and now i am getting caught up in the self reflexive thing that it posits as worthwhile and of value. but towards. what. ultimately and it just rings as hollow as any other pretentious piece hey and ever see woody allen take on bergman and ie represent interiors. well and this just does it more amateurishly. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "not to be confused with the madonna film the next best thing and the last big thing is a silly and campy and off the wall comedy about a man who yearns to start a magazine called the next big thing which reviews a variety of up and coming artists. this low budget indie makes chuck and buck look like a masterpiece. fraught with lousy acting and poor sets and costuming and etc. and . thing has earned some awful reviews and to date has only been nominated for one fringe award. pass on this one. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "after reading the book and i loved the story. watching the movie i was disappointed that so many changes were made. it is understandable that books and movies differ but it was two different stories and only the names and some of the book story remained. read the book and you will have a better understanding of the movie. the book gives you a better development of the characters. these characters are extremely interesting and make you care about them. the locations were indeed in line with the book descriptions. some characters not included. television has microwaved so many great books and stories and this is a perfect example of that. input from the author doesn not always insure a good movie but it can help sometimes. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i read the book and really enjoyed it from beginning to end. however and when i saw the movie i was very disappointed. first of all and no disrespect to deborah raffin but she was too mature to play a woman of 24/25. the late christopher reeve was also miscast same reason. will and according to the book and was around 30. i would have love to see a little more exploration of his military life and his friend red and elly trip to see him as that was an important part of the characters storyline development. also miss beasley was miscast as the book mentioned her being a plus size lady. i know the movie do not have the budget of the bridges of madison county which i believe was released around the same time. but to me this was a very poorly made and low budget and miscast movie. as someone mentioned and i wish that miss spenser would come out of retirement and write screenplays for her books as they ought to be. she knows her characters better than anyone and i hope that she would consider doing the casting too. the movie let me down. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i have seen my fair share of badly thought out endings and final twists to films and but i do not recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did. the film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would urprise us all. and it did and but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. i was left feeling surprised that connery and harris and fishburn and capshaw had anything to do with this turkey and individually or collectively. the film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and i like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. but once the twist was revealed and the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable and the underlying motive for revenge was ill conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for bobby earl was ridiculously far fetched. what worse is that and once the twist was revealed and the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable. harris gave a terrific performance and connery is like morgan freeman in that he never gives a bad performance and even if the movie ain not that great. so all in all and it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. the last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "paul armstrong is a liberal and scottish born and professor of law at harvard and known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty and who is hired to take on the case of bobby earl and a young black man from florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of joanie shriver and an eleven year old white girl. earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is blair sullivan and a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. armstrong visits sullivan in his cell on death row and hoping to persuade him to confess to joanie murder and thereby saving earl from the electric chair. at first all goes well. sullivan confesses and earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. as this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film and it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. warning. major plot twist ahead. and so it proves. the anticipated twist soon materialises. earl and it transpires and is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted and and probably of several others as well and but hatched a diabolical plan together with sullivan in order to secure his freedom while sullivan will confess to joanie murder if earl will murder his parents. (just why sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved while earl has a grudge against armstrong wife and herself a lawyer and who acted as counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when earl was accused of rape. just cause is an example of the auto cannibalism in which hollywood sometimes likes to indulge and cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. the first half owes an obvious debt to films like intruder in the dust and to kill a mockingbird while about the only difference is that the sheriff who beats a confession out of bobby earl is himself black and whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). the central twist in the plot was borrowed from costa gavras music box and although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. the finale and in which a lawyer and his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client and is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of cape fear and which also take place in the swamplands of the american south. ed harris characterisation of sullivan as a bible quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of robert de niro character in the scorsese version of cape fear and made four years before just cause. (there is a postscript. just as just cause borrowed heavily from several other movies and seven years later its central plot twist was and in its turn and to be blatantly plagiarised in the ashley judd vehicle high crimes). the trouble with this style of film making by numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. the whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts and and just cause is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances and largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de niro playing max cady. blair underwood is ok as bobby earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes and but unconvincing as bobby earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. sean connery as armstrong and laurence fishburne as the black sheriff are rather better and but neither is good enough to save the film. (connery and harris were to act together in another and better and film and the rock and the following year). there is another problem with just cause. the first half of the film looks like a standard liberal issue movie and anti death penalty and anti racist and critical of heavy handed policing. the second half looks more like the work of a die hard reactionary and preaching the message that all criminals are evil bastards and that the only way to deal with them is to fry them in the chair and that liberal lawyers are the useful idiots of the criminal fraternity and that police officers who beat up suspects are to be commended as heroes. the filmmakers seem to have been blissfully unaware that the plot twist casually introduced into the middle of their film had the (presumably unwanted) effect of reversing its political stance and or if they were aware of the problem they ignored it. a suitably convoluted plot was obviously thought to be more important than political consistency. 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "just cause showcases sean connery as a harvard law prof and kate capshaw (does she still get work. ) as his wife (slight age difference) and lawrence fishburne as a racist southern cop (. ) and ed harris in a totally over the top rendition of a fundamentalist southern serial killer. weird casting and but the movie plays serious mindf with the audience. (do not read if you ever intend to seriously watch this film or to ever watch this film seriously due to the spoilers) first of all and i felt myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the liberal stereotypes represent the cops are all sadistic and frame this black guy with no evidence. the coroner and witnesses and even the lawyer of the accused collaborate against him (he is accused of the rape and murder of a young girl) because he is black. connery is a harvard law prof who gives impassioned speeches about the injustices against blacks and against the barbarous death penalty. he is approached by the convicted man grandmother to defend him and re open the trial. connery is stonewalled (yawn. ) by the small town officials and the good il boys club but finds that the case against blair and the alleged killer and now on death row and was all fabricated. the main evidence was his confession which was beaten out of him. the beating was administered by a black cop (. ) who even played russian roulette to get the confession out of him. connery finds out that another inmate on death row actually did the murder and after a few tete a tetes with a seriously overacting and hannibal lecter like ed harris and he finds out where harris hid the murder weapon. he gets a re trial and blair is freed. i think. film over. then suddenly. it turns out that blair is a psychotic psycho and that he used white guilt to enlist connery. he concocted the story with ed harris in return for blair carrying out a few murders for harris. now blair is on the loose again and thanks to connery deluded pc principles. the final 30 min. are a weird action movie tacked onto a legal drama and connery and fishburne fighting the serial killer in an alligator skinning house on stilts (yes and you read that right) in the everglades. that was one weird film. so the whole system is corrupt and inefficient and the cops are all just bullies and abu graib type torturers and but the criminals are really psychotics and deserve to fry. truly depressing on every level. the system is completely rotten and the pc white guilt types who challenge it are seriously deluded too. two thumbs down. connery obviously had to make a mortgage payment or something. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. there are surprises and twists and turns and reverses and excitements. at times and this is truly an edge of the seat film. but it disappoints and and disappoints severely. the villain of the piece is not believeable while his character does not hold together. i refuse to spoil the film and but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning just could not be he whom we see at the end. the second major disappointment of the film is that finally and it becomes little more that a bloody slasher film. there is little qualitative difference between this and one of the friday the 13th films. not that every film need always be totally tasteful and but this film does drip gore on occasion. though the film features the magnificent sean connery and even he does not measure up to his usual standard and and often just seems to be walking through the paces. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "just cause is one of those films that at first makes you wonder quite why it was so heavily slated when it came out nothing special but competent enough and with an excellent supporting performance from ed harris. then you hit the last third and everything starts to get increasingly silly until you have got a killer with a flashlight strapped to his forehead threatening to fillet sean connery wife (a typically mannered and unconvincing kate capshaw) and kid (a very young scarlet johannsen) in an alligator skinner shack. the kind of movie that probably best seen on a plane and and even then only once. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "look carefully at the wonderful assortment of talent put together to make this movie represent connery and fishburne and capshaw and harris and underwood and beatty and thigpen and even cameos by slezak and lange and and plimpton. they prove and in spades and the adage that a good cast cannot save a bad script. the story line requires so many leaps of faith from the audience that its implausibility should have exceeded even hollywood standards. it not particularly original and and the twists are downright cruel. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "as other reviewers have noted the film dies in the last half hour. however before that it suffers from predictability and a stunningly vapid performance by kate capshaw and who clearly never found her character and ruins every scene she in. connery is fine as is fishbourne and but most scenes are manipulated for effect rather than truth which overlays the entirety with a sense of unreality. and the ending is simply bizarre. the film makers apparently knew when they pieced this mess together that all they needed were sweet potatoes and pumpkin pie to have thanksgiving dinner and so to compensate they added an overloud dramatic score. every little jump is accompanied by a crescendo of orchestration and to the point where it becomes laughable. if you want an example of major league bad film this is one to see and otherwise skip 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "seems that the cast should ensure at least an average movie. and so i sat down for 102 minutes of unbelief. beside ed harris no one seems to own the skills of acting. even sean connery and who i normally worship and must have had an off day during the entire filming of just case. not once in during the whole movie one actor could convince me. this made this movie look cheap and unreal. the story makes up a little. it is thrilling and and the plot is unexpected. conclusion only watch this movie if you really have nothing more useful to do. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "1st watched 2/16/2002 negative (dir arne glimcher) represent mystery. or thriller with too many ridiculous plot twists. despite the very talented cast this movie is way too predictable and just downright under estimates it audience. the movie going public is not stupid and i hope will not keep filling certain stars pockets again and again despite what they are involved with. we think that this movie is going to be about something with connery conviction against capitol punishment in the beginning but it turns out to be nothing but a standard and contrived for the audience sake and run of the mill and let never get it over with and thriller. we are pulled into every silly switch in character and as they are portrayed to us when it needed in the story and and were ready for this thing to be over way before it ends. yes there is some good acting here and especially from blair underwood and fishburne and and ed harris in a psycho supporting role but the story does not work from almost the beginning to the very long awaited end. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the performances of fishbourne (who appears strangely funny somehow) and (short featured)ed harris are remarkable and unlike connery who doesn not appear to find sense in his role and ends up in the motorial behaviour of a 80yr old man. in fact the screenplay doesn not make sense while imagine a 60 min. happy ending plot plus a sudden turn appendix without any argumental structure in respect to the characters. it more an accident than a screenplay and may be good for examination purposes at screen wrights schools. the more you remind the details the stronger this impression gets. the capital punishment is not an issue here and although it is a subject from the beginning while it sort of fades away without further comment. the subject matter and environment could have been good. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "a pot boiler if ever i saw one. a supposed thriller borrowing from a time to kill and silence of the lambs and even an inverted in the heat of the night with a little reverse murder and a la strangers on a train thrown in and it fails abysmally where all the above and to a large degree and succeeded. namely and in delivering thrills. the plot seems condensed from a bigger book and making the plot developments obvious and uninvolving and while the direction lacks pace and verve. to rein in any kudos and a major twist had to be delivered along the way and here it fails palpably too. connery is clearly slowing down in his old age and barely bothering with his attempt at a us accent and besides seems too old to be the husband of hope lange and the father of those gosh darn kids of his. he even has a father in law who seems younger than him. laurence fishburne barely gets the chance to inhabit his role and youre confused from the outset as to whether he a bad guy or a good guy. someone once said that flashbacks shouldn not lie they do and confusedly and here. the rest of the playing is merely average by a reasonable cast in their underwritten stereotyped roles. the supposed climax managed too and to roll by leaving me firmly entrenched in the back and not as should have been the aim and front edge of my seat. mediocre sloppy hollywood film making for sure. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this movie is a crappy and forgettable sean connery vehicle. the performances are generally crappy especially by capshaw and fishburne and and the usually solid ed harris. connery seems miscast as a harvard academic. the movie absolutely gets worse as it goes along. it is a third rate mystery that becomes extremely contrived by the time it unravels. the movie squanders an excellent supporting cast. george plimpton also turns up in a minor role to add some gravitas to connery as they debate the death penalty. the violence and the atmosphere pepper a third rate mystery or thriller that is manipulation to the highest degree. the scripting and direction are extremely poor. connery charisma and screen presence are the film only virtue. manipulative and violent and and ridiculous. negative avoid 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. jesus christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal. this is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. jesus christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal. this is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. jesus christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal. this is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. jesus christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "because it is and that why. this is the same jealous daughter kills people flick we have seen a billion times. rosanna arquette makes anything worth watching and and mandy schaffer brief nude scene (after teasing via scantily clad attire throughout the film) at the end almost make this trite blarney worthwhile and but not quite. 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this can not be mandy schaffer last film. somebody and do something. represent (argh. what little life this one might have had and the directing finished off. don not blame the cast while they did ok. even the winemaker younger brother was pretty well done and and he do not even get into the movie until halfway through. and please and please put mandy in some more movies. she too beautiful to bury her career at such a young age. ya breakin my haht and heah. two specific criticisms and in case anyone cares (apparently nobody liked this movie very much). first and the way traci kept popping up at just the right melodramatic moment and in order to see whatever she was supposed to see and and never got seen in return and was very annoying. hollywood represent please stop giving villains perfect timing luck which runs out exactly when the climax arrives. it dumb. write better scripts so you would not have to use that lame plot device any more. if your script isn not good enough to stand up without that and then do not produce it. second and carmen do not have fallen for that fake injury trick that traci pulled. she already had traci fingered. more bad writing or directing there. i could trash this movie further but mercy forbids it. actually i do not hate it as much as the others seem to have. it just do not have much of a reason for being made and unless it was purely a vehicle to show off the lovely mandy. oh and and to whoever do not think she was sexy. the character wasn not very well written and but how can you say she wasn not sexy. one or the other of us needs glasses and and i do not think it me. more mandy. (not to be confused with moore and mandy although i would like to see her again too. while )p. s. did i mention i hope mandy makes me more movies. < represent d. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "let me be really clear about this movie. i do not watch this movie because of the plot and i watch it for the saucy sex scenes. that being said and this movie is so god damn awful i flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of traci (mandy schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot. spoiler alert the first scene of the movie already had me cringing. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside and in pure bliss and serene and then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. when they both finished and they show each other what they had done. and the woman painted a vineyard when she is facing infront of the lake. what kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake. and in another scene and traci gets to kill her teacher lover by smash him with the sail pole and and then she swims away and and none of the town police suspected her once. i mean hellooooo. mandy did not wear a glove did she. her finger prints are all over the god damn boat. after that and it gets worst and whenever mandy is around and there is the chilling sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. it also a real pity rosanna arquette is in this movie. i feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft porn no brainer. same goes for jürgen prochnow and who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. all in all and 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "a truly and truly dire canadian german co production and the ever wonderful rosanna arquette plays an actress whose teenage daughter redefines the term problem child a few uears prior to the action the child murdered her father and and mum took the fall for the offspring. now she moved up to the northwest us to start over and but her child still has a problem in that she devoted to her mother. so devoted in fact that she kills anyone who might be seen as a threat to their bond. unfortunately mandy schaeffer (as the daughter) murders more than people she delivers such a terrible performance that she also wipes out the movie and though the incoherent script and useless direction and appalling music (check out the saxophone the first time she displays her bikini clad bod) do not help any while were supposed to find her sexy and scary and but she fails on both counts. almost completely unalluring and not even bad enough to be amusing (not to mention the fact that arquette and schaeffer do not really convince as mother and daughter) and all condolences to miss arquette and jurgen prochnow and both of whom are worthy of far more than this and and both of whom (particularly rosanna) are the only sane reasons for anyone to sit through this farrago. one of the production companies is called quality international films not since the three hour love and lies and murder (from two short productions) has there been such a you must be joking credit. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this movie is so bad and i knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. very bad acting very bad plot very bad moviedo yourself a favour and dont watch it 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "oh man. if you want to give your internal crow t. robot a real workout and this is the movie to pop into the ol vcr. the potential for cut up lines in this film is just endless. (minor spoilers ahead. hey and do you really care if a film of this quality is spoiled. ) traci is a girl with a problem. psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite sex parent. but this girl seems to have one for her same sex one and and i do not think there a term for that. it might be because her mother dana is played by rosanna arquette and whose cute overbite and neo flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. here dana is not only clueless to her daughter conduct while she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the olympic indulgent mother competition. it possible that dana misses traci murderous streak because truth be told and traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. it only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count. a particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of carmen and a mexican maid who is described by dana as around so long she like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say and i just fell off the tomato truck from guadalajara. carmen is so wise to traci scheming and she might also wear a sign saying and hey and i am the next victim. sure enough and traci confronts carmen as carmen is making her way back from mass and and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. i rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire. in another sequence and arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard and under cloudy skies and talking to the owner. cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies and talking to the owner brother. then cut to her wearing the first dress and in the first location and under cloudy skies but it supposed to be later. you get the picture. were talking really bad directing. as for skin and do not expect much and although traci does own a nice couple of bikinis. for those looking for a trash wallow and 8. for anybody else and 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.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course eddie murphy. i think this was his first movie since beverly hills cop so at the time he was hot. considering that one made over two hundred million and it was r and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. i have never been a big eddie murphy fan and so that is probably another reason i do not care for it much at all. this one has eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. he must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. the plot is very bad and but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. i had seen better stuff done in the 70 than some of the stuff this one offers and ray harryhausen did better stuff. still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of eddie and unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the raiders of the lost ark type scenes. i guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect and but to me it just did not work. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.