Datasets:

ELVISIO

/

modified_imdb_dataset_official_triplet_forLLM

like 0

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this was an incredibly stupid movie. it was possibly the worst movie i have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. i cannot fathom how it ranks a rating of 5 or 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: "sloppily directed and witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the classic 50s alien invasion films and but really is no better than them and except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). and any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail (casino royale and our man flint are worse than almost any james bond movie). after two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens and you will be begging for some peace and quiet. ( 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: "dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. violent sexy milligan at his most home made. little better than a home movie (as much of milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960 style. notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome and playing now more as quaint. (though decidedly r rated). the film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production. (no one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "if youre after the real story of early baroque painter artemisia gentileschi and you will be disappointed however if youre after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme and you have found youre movie. this film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of artemisia gentileschi life that it almost made me weep. (type in artemisia inaccuracies in google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles. ) from a purely technical point of view though and the film was alright represent the sets and costumes and and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience while although the above mentioned glaring factual inaccuracies let it down a bit. i wonder how the director or co writer agnès merlet defended her film at the time. perhaps she refused to portray artemisia as a victim and which would have been unfortunate and because lets face it and she was. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 others have noted and this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist life and i for one was very annoyed and offended. by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair and by the implication that her rapist was responsible for awakening her talent and by its complete disregard for her work and by the way it turned her into a sex object and on and on and you get the idea. also and i find it disturbing that people who aren not familiar with gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "artemesia takes the usual story about the art world and eg and you can not paint that. but i want to. and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film and well and interesting and but not remarkable. the story is about one of the first female painters around and artemesia who course and is fiercely independent and but just can not stop thinking of men and and their bodies… for artistic purposes of course. she soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist and but soon tutoring becomes much more then art and and soon after that and scandal erupts. funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft porn fantasy. i mean and was artemesia that much of a man hungry person. also and it quite funny when she insisting that she paints for herself. yet falls for the first person she sees. actually and the story itself is quite fascinating and and it ends with a trial and which i always love. but i wasn not too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher and who looked rather like the person someone like that do not fall for. i woulda gone for the young fisherman representp. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 acting is good and the women are beautiful and and the men are handsome and so if youre looking for well acted soft porn and this movie is for you. otherwise and you are wasting your time. the motivation of the main characters and in particular the eponymous lead and is often a mystery. she could have just told the truth the truth as presented in the film and not necessarily the historical truth and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit. was she protecting her father and who went off half cocked and as it were and when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit. was she protecting herself and with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter. during the trial and this strong willed woman turns to mush before our eyes. conversely and her lover and who starts off as a narcissistic jerk and becomes a selfless hero during the trial. at least his motivation is clearer represent he sacrifices himself for love. naturally and since no good deed must go unpunished and we are told that she never sees him again. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "an awful film. it must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the golden globe. they have taken the story of the first famous female renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition. my complaint is not that they have taken liberties with the facts while if the story were good and that would perfectly fine. but it simply bizarre by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film and so why did they come up with this dishwater dull script. i suppose there weren not enough naked people in the factual version. it hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist life we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they would favored the rest of the film with same brevity. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 did the director think. everybody who has read the biography of artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that tassi was guilty. that fact shows the real independence and emancipation in her most terrible hour she stands her man. why do movies depicting renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic and are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the hollywood happy happy mood won. while i would always defend a director freedom to create his own reality in a movie i cannot make sense of turning artimisia life story on its head. very disappointing choice by the makers of this film. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this flick was a blow to me. i guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models and home makers or mistresses and since that seems to be all they will ever be portrayed as anyway. it is truly saddening to see an artist work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated. inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected) and artemisia entire character and all that she stands for and had been reduced to a standard hollywood and female character while a pitiful and physically flawless and helpless little creature and displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here. sadder yet and was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film and and reality. to portray the artist as someone in love with her real life rapist and someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture and just plain pisses me off. if the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "when i saw the preview and i thought represent this is going to be a great movie. and indeed it could have been. the actress playing the main character was very credible and and the beauty of the filming is undeniable. however the dialogues cast a dark shadow on the whole picture. the level of language was too familiar and too contemporary for an action taking place in 1610 and and it took away most of the magic of the film. however and i must congratulate the translator and because the english sub titles were more refined and appropriate that the original french cues and and it probably explains the good rating the movie received on the imbd. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 was disgusted by this movie. no it wasn not because of the graphic sex scenes and it was because it ruined the image of artemisia gentileschi. this movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. it shows one piece of art work that she did (judith beheading holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first judith for a year after the trial. i do not know if you understood this from the movie and probably not and tassi was not a noble character. he raped artemisia. it was not love and it was rape. he did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. according to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again it true. i encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real artemisia and see what she is really about. don not base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. i encourage you to do some research and artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work. don not see the movie and but find out the true story of artemisia. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 do not think the french could make a bad movie and but i was and clearly and very wrong. as has been said before and this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure while its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real artemisia gentileschi. the script is awful pretentious and stilted and and vapid and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting and rather than retelling and history. along with some fairly decent set design and valentina cervi physical charms are the primary asset of this movie and and it obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too while they waste no time in contriving various erotic sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. unfortunately and the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot and and does not and sustain this movie. the acting is unremarkable and and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. the cinematography is ok and and there are some pretty colors and but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. in any event and the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on artemisia body and and all too seldom on her paintings. all told and a near complete failure. it not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film and and it too slow and pretentious to work as soft core pornography. so the french can fail and after all. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "it figures this is a french film and lol and with the emphasis on young girls with much older men. why is it the french are so fixated on this kind of thing. when the age difference is this great and it really comes off as pervy. valentina cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to olivia hussey and of zeffirelli 68 romeo and juliet and set in a similar period) and but she looks about 15 and the actor playing tassi and her painting instructor and looks. well and 50 is kind. other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real artemisia and a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age old accusation that all great artists were men she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. not only was she clearly assaulted and and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame) and but tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child. the movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story very dramatic and not in need of any spicing up because in some weird frencified way and it hotter to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. that sexy the truth is boring and seems too feminist or politically correct. it also disturbs me that this is only part of artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. the fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of judith beheading holfernes was painted after and not before the rape) and that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious florentine academy and that she went on to have children. oh that boring stuff. after all and that about a middle aged woman and they aren not hot like teenagers. i understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. you need to create dialog and have subplots and create dramatic structure. certainly some details can be sacrificed it no big deal if the dates are moved a few years and or if artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette. and a big boned one and not a skinny minny) and or something like that. but to turn her story around on her and and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. it even worse because the director is female. she should be horribly ashamed of herself. if you like this (and i know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex) and you will probably like dangerous beauty with rufus sewell and catherine mccormack. similarly based on heavily re written history and with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets represent bon appetit. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn not bother with an actual story and it annoying. those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first and and the story simply tacked on. for this reason we often talk of the story jumping through hoops as it twists about and trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion. the story in comet over broadway doesn not just jump through hoops and it a three ring circus. it so ludicrous and so ill conceived and so disingenuous that and if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen and you will be carrying on quite a rant before it through. the central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession. since it all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion. so and in the end there no point to the story and the theme becomes irrelevant and and as is often the case with poor screenplays and the acting doesn not save a 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: " negative for kay francis she wonderful. and she do not deserve this horrible tripe that warner bros. threw her way. the two pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. kay is a small town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger represent she wants to be an actress. when a big shot actor comes to town and invites kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities and kay tells her husband she going to the movies. the hubby biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby ear that kay not being truthful and and he sets out looking for her. he finds her w or the actor in the hotel (they are only talking. ) and he slugs the guy and who falls over a railing and lands face first in a pond (lake. ) and and dies. now here the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based represent 1) the judge tells the jury that if it determined that the man died before his head went into the water and that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (whaaaaa. i think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most and not first degree murder. give me a break. but the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. whatever. ) 2) the hubby lawyer and after the conviction and sentencing and tells kay that it all her fault. his reasoning is that if she hadn not gone over to the actor room and then her husband do not have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. he tells her that she the guilty one and not her husband and and she nods and agrees. what. the. hell. the rest of the movie is all about kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place. i can not even go on with this review. the movie was just all too painful. four years earlier and in the pre code days and you would never have caught kay playing such a wimp. in true kay francis fashion and though and she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. i give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. this character was a far cry from pre code kay roles and real life spitfire kay francis. steer way clear of this one. there are much better kay francis vehicles out there. (from personal experience and i can highly recommend mary stevens and md and jewel robbery while also good are dr. monica and one way passage. i am sure there other great kay flicks as well and but i am only mentioning the ones i have seen and can recommend. ). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "wow and the plot for this film is all over the place. there is so much plot and so many things that happen that it practically made my head spin. and and as a result and none of it seemed particularly believable. the movie starts with kay francis as a housewife living in a small town. she had some experience with local theater and has ambitions of going to broadway. when a big time actor arrives in town and she pursues him in hopes that he can give her a career boost. but and her husband is worried about shenanigans as this actor is a cad. so and the hubby bursts in on them and hits the actor and the actor dies. as a result and he convicted of first degree murder. not manslaughter and but murder 1. now and pregnant and in need of funds and kay goes to new york. but broadway jobs aren not to be found and so she forced to take any job even burlesque. unable to adequately care for her young daughter and she gives it to another woman to raise. however and eventually she does find a job in a real broadway play and everything looks rosy. but and the jealous diva starring in the play hates her for some inexplicable reason and forces her to be thrown off the play. despondent and she makes her way to england and becomes a real star. years later and she returns to new york to get her kid but the child is older and thinks the woman caring for her is her real mother. at the same time and her husband lawyer now thinks that if he gets $10 and 000 he can get the man out of prison. as another reviewer wrote and is this to bribe people. how can $10 and 000 get him out otherwise maybe it will buy a helicopter so they can fly into the prison yard and scoop him up. wow this is enough for 2 or 3 films. and and all this occurs by the 45 minute mark. believe it or not and there quite a bit more to it. if you really care and see it yourself to find out how it all unfolds. this is sort of like kitchen sink writing throwing in practically everything and hoping and somehow and it will all work. unfortunately and the film turns out to be hopelessly unbelievable and mushy despite ms. francis best efforts. it the sort of film no one could really have saved thanks to a 2nd rate plot. it almost as if someone just took a few dozen plot elements and threw them into a box and then began randomly picking them in order to make a movie. overall and unless you are a die hard kay francis fan or love anything hollywood made in the 1930s and this one is one you can easily skip. not terrible but certainly not good. by the way and the child who plays francis daughter upon her return to new york (sybil jason) really was terrible. i think she was supposed to be. i think. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the competition for the worst warner bros kay francis movie is stiff. i have only seen perhaps eight of them and but comet over broadway is the worst so far. the very best thing about it is that it short. oh and and the orry kelly gowns (of course) are fine. james wong howe cinematography is not. kay francis throughout looks fat faced and far less attractive than she normally does. minna gombell whom i do not know otherwise is good as a semi tough burlesque dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). the closing shot kay francis and her child (when did the child learn that kay francis was her mother. did i doze off. ) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. the whole film is so cheap and so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it represent warner bros tossing garbage to dolts who do not know and in warner bros cynical estimation of them and that what theyre getting is garbage. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 somewhere that when kay francis refused to take a cut in pay and warner bros. retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract. she decided to take the money. but her career suffered accordingly. that might explain what she was doing in comet over broadway. (though it doesn not explain why donald crisp and ian hunter are in it and too. ) ludicrous is the word that others have used for the plot of this film and and that right on target. the murder trial. her seedy vaudeville career. her success in london. her final scene with her daughter. no part logically leads to the next part. also and the sets and costumes looked like b movie stuff. and her hair. turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month. watch any other one and you will be doing yourself a favor. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "when converting a book to film and it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author intended tone or conveyed concepts and rather than ignoring the author altogether. while it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of elinore stewart children and it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good and enriching and strengthening experiences of homesteading her land. the book details her life on her and her husband adjoining homesteads in the vast wyoming frontier while she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances and though they lived dozens of miles apart. the film and however and takes a standard stance for the time it was made and portraying this woman experience as harsh and unforgiving and and nearly pointless. perhaps the director was bringing some of his vietnam war experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said) and but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak and odious landscape devoid of friends or hope. don not waste your time with this movie while read the book instead. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "one of the most disgusting films i have ever seen. i wanted to vomit after watching it. i saw this movie in my american history class and the purpose was to see an incite on the life of a farmer in the west during the late 1800 . what we saw were pigs being shot and then slaughtered and human birth and branding. oh and at the end there was a live birth of a calf and let me tell you that the birth itself wasn not too bad and but the numerous fluids that came out drove most people in my class to the bathroom. the story itself was ok. the premise of the story is a widow and her daughter and they move to the west to be a house keeper of this cowboy. they live a life of hardship and it is an interesting a pretty accurate view of life in the west during the late 1800 . but if you have a choice and do not see 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 realize that living in the western plains of wyoming during the 1900s was brutal and in fact and it probably is still brutal today and but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly made for tv movie. also and women rights were still budding in this nation during this time and so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory and and still show the realism of the era … would it make for good viewing. honestly and i do not know. i have thought about this film for the past two days and and i still can not seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film and yet i can truthfully tell you that it wasn not the greatest i have ever seen. from several hodgepodge styles of acting and to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character and to some of the most gruesome pg rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema and it is hard to fully get a good grasp on heartland. was it good. was it bad. that may be up for you to view and decide yourself and but until then and here are moments i enjoyed and desperately hated. this film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes. scenes where i wasn not sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed and but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole. i thought the story as a whole was a very interesting and historical tale. i do not know much about living in wyoming and especially during the early 1900s and so this film captured that image in my mind. the thought of very cold winters and no neighbors for miles upon miles and and this polaroid esquire view untouched by corporate america. it was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television). there were scenes that really stood out in my mind and like the cattle branding scene and the pig slaughtering scene and and the saddening homesteader that do not survive their journey and that just brought a true sense of realism to this story. director richard pearce did a great job of bringing the view of wyoming to the viewers and but i am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view. while i will constantly compliment the scenery of this film and i had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side. rip torn seemed out of place in his role as clyde stewart and a loner that somehow finds a connection with conchata ferrell elinore randall. the two as actors have no chemistry at all. their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion. the pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two veteran actors portrayed it. the brave elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her and while clyde gives an approving nod when she is done. this is love. was it supposed to be love. i do not know and i think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond and but with torn and ferrell and it felt like two actors just playing their parts. other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse knocks on the door for food or shelter and the constantly fading and growing compassion that clyde had for elinore daughter (i just do not believe it) and the lack of true winter struggle and and the entire land scene. the land scene especially because i needed more explanation on what elinore was doing and why she was doing it and and why clyde would build her a house if they were married. it was these simple events that if taken the time to explore and would have made for a stronger film. overall and i will go middle of the road with this feature. there were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper and such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of elinore and but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation. these panoramic scenes which and in the span of 100 years and have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers. while there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs) and i just felt as if we needed more. depth was a key element lacking in this film and which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story. pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world and but instead left open loopholes and clichéd western characters. ferrell carried her own and but torn was completely miscast. decent for a viewing and but will not be picked up again by me. grade represent 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: "that what my friend brian said about this movie after about an hour of it. he wasn not able to keep from dozing off. i had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally i relented and played it and having run out of adjectives for boring. imagine if you will and the pinnacle of hack work. something so uninspired and so impossibly dreadful and that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody. some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable. it is not and not under any form of narcotic or brain damage. i would only recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is. don not believe me. gather round. granted and as a nation and we in america do not always portray middle eastern peoples in a tasteful manner. but how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam fashion to a stack of castrol motor oil bottles. you will find that here. get it. the arab worships oil. i couldn not believe what i was seeing. having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would have been more appropriate. who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke. it not even close to cleverly offensive. it just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face. in the middle of the film and a five man singing group called the landmines takes the stage at an officers ball. okay are you ready. the joke is they sing terribly and off key. why did i write that in caps also. because the joke is pound and pound and pounded into your head with a marathon of horrendous sight gags. they start off mediocre enough while glasses cracking and punch tumblers shattering. then there is and i am 100% serious and a two frame stop motion sequence of a womans shoes coming off. you read that correctly the music was so bad and in one frame and the woman feet have shoes on. in the very next the shoes are off. get it and because the music was so bad and her shoes came off. what the f. then there is an endless montage of stock footage to drive home the point that the singing is bad. if any human being actually suffered through this scene in the theater without running like hell and i would be astonished. this movie is honestly like a practical joke to see how fast people would bolt out the doors. robert downey sr. directs comedy the way his son commands respect by staying drug free. badly. other things to watch out for represent1. the popular music shoehorned in wherever possible. every time liceman appears and a really inappropriate iggy pop song plays. plus all the actors do their best to act like it got really chilly for some reason. 2. barbara bach criminally awful accent. she sounds like she trying to talk like a baby while rolling a marble around on her tongue. there is no nudity and and there are several scenes where the boys all moan and writhe from a glimpse of her cleavage and like theyre in a community school acting class and they have been directed to act like aroused retarded people. 3. liceman feeds his revolting dog a condom. remember while when this movie came out throwing in abortion and condom was seen as edgy. 4. tom poston plays a mincing and boy hungry pedophile and back when hollywood thought pedophile and homosexual were one in the same. flat out embarrassing. 5. watch the ending. nothing is wrong with your vcr. that is actually the ending. tell me that doesn not make you want to explode everyone who ever made any movie and ever. watch this at your own risk. up the academy has been known to actually make other movies and like the jerk or blazing saddles and less funny simply by placing the videotape near them. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "the only thing i remember about this movie are two things represent first and as a twelve year old and even i thought it stunk. second and it was so bad that when mad magazine did a parody of it and they quit after the first page and and wrote a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that they had completely disavowed it. if you want to see great sophomoric comedies of this period and try animal house. it so stupid and vulgar it lowers itself to high art. another good selection would be caddyshack and the classic with the late rodney dangerfield and bill murray before he became annoyingly charming and with great lines like greens keeper carl spackler correct me if i am wrong sandy and but if i kill all the golfers they will lock me up and throw away the key. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 stale misfits in the army saga and which half heartedly attempts to be both surreal (the foreign subtitles) and vulgar (the flatulence gags) and but just ends up being a mix of many different kinds of humor and none of them followed very successfully. barbara bach and the bond girl from the spy who loved me and has only two or three brief scenes. what a waste. ( 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 used to love this movie as a kid but and seeing it again 20 plus years later and it actually sucks. up the academy might have been ahead of it time back in 1980 and but it has almost nothing to offer today. movies like caddyshack and stripes hold up much better today than this steaming dogpile. no t and a. no great jokes except for the one liners we have all heard a million times by now. i recently bought the dvd in hopes that it would be the gem i remembered it being. well and i was way off. the soundtrack had only 2 3 widely recognizable hits (not the smash compilation others had mentioned) and the frequent voice overs were terrible. the only thing that was interesting and to me and was predicting what the character lines were before they said them. yep and i watched this movie that much back then. the only reason i am writing this review is to give my two cents on why this movie should be forgotten and sorry to say. 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: "mad magazine may have a lot of crazy people working for it. but obviously someone there had some common sense when the powers that be disowned this waste of celluloid. the editing is el crapo and the plot is incredibly thin and stupid. and the only reason it gets a two out of ten is that stacy nelkin takes off some of her clothes and we get a nice chest shot. i never thought i would feel sorry for ralph macchio making the decision to be in this thing and but i do. and i really feel bad for ron leibman and tom poston and gifted actors who never should have shown up in this piece of. film. at least mr. leibman had the cajones to refuse to have his name put anywhere on the movie. and he comes out ahead. there are actually copies of this thing with mad beginning sequence still on it. if you can locate one and grab it cuz it is probably worth something. it the only thing about this movie that worth anything. and a note to the folks at imdb. com. there is no way to spoil this movie for anyone. the makers spoiled it by themselves. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "before i comment on this movie i just watched on youtube and i have to admit that the reason i checked this out was to rewatch something i first saw on the tv ads in 1980 represent barbara bach cleavage. and since the movie received an r rating and i expected to see her nude. alas and no dice for her or of the other gorgeous actress that appeared here represent stacey nelkin who supposed to be a teen but was actually 20 when she made this. seeing her in a bra and panty and later in a belly dancer outfit was just as arousing as ms. bach. they provide some of the scattered laughs this movie provides. in fact and i do not blame ron leibman for having his name removed from the credits since his role as the tight fisted liceman is pretty embarrassing though i did like the seduction scene he did with ms. nelkin. this also happens to be the debut of ralph macchio who the loner among the misfits sent to an academy school. the others are a black kid who really loves his stepmother and ms. bach and an arab who worships motor oil and and a politician son who loves his girlfriend candy (nelkin character) so much and he risks sneaking in the middle of the night see her in the girls academy. among the supporting cast and tom poston plays a swishy character named sisson who i found partly amusing. with a screenplay by tom patchett and jay tarses and direction by robert downey sr. (whose son robert downey jr. has a cameo early on in a soccer scene) and up the academy is uneven with the politically incorrect humor but unless youre really offended at the scatological and sexual content and this is actually a pretty harmless comedy that mad magazine and its trademark cover boy alfred e. newman shouldn not be ashamed of even though they once had their name and character taken off the picture. p. s. another one of the misfits was harry teinowitz who was born in my birth town of chicago and ill. he played rodney ververgaert. he also says one of my favorite lines represent i am trying to come. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "there are bad movies and terrible movies even boring movies. i can watch most and put up until the end and not this time. avoid this like the plague and annoying music throughout and terrible editing and no comedy and its tackier than a novelty mug. my missus wanted to watch this thinking it would be legally blonde material or something kind of watchable and but never better than average and chick flick. its the first time she was begging me to push the stop button. the girls and well and they were not great to start with (denise done ok in starship troopers and wild things) but you have sank to the gravel. i feel like a mug having spent 30 minutes on this. pamela anderson is almost unrecognisable after much construction work to her face. please take my advice if you want to avoid wasting valuable oxygen and brain cells ranting at the utter mince that is on your screen. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "how could i best express my feelings about this movie represent hideous. a headache. lack of coherent writing. plain stupidity. try all of the above for this travesty. and that just for the direction. story. well i guess there is a story. two dumb blondes look for a job after they crash a plane into a golf course. they are mistaken for a world renounced assassin (sarcasm) and are hired by two amobsters. one thinks taking him out means a date and and the other gets the minor actor she dreams of. and of course and the turtle reserve for the farting turtle and that they build with the casino winnings. sounds likes all this could be funny. guess again. they try to make it funny and but its not. filming sequences aren not well done. i have seen better filming in hong kong movies. visuals are average for a late 80s film. but the problem is that its a 2007 movie. not worth my time to ever watch this again. it still doesn not beat danny glover out movie from the early 80s as the worst movie of all time and but then again that film is in a class of its own. f. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "when i was at the movie store the other day and i passed up blonde and blonder and but something about it just seemed like it could possibly be a cute movie. who knows. i mean and i am sure most people bashed romy and michelle before they saw it and blonde and blonder might have just been another secret treasure that was passed up. but when i started watching it represent executive producer pamela anderson and wow and i knew i was in for something scary. not only that and but both of what were considered the pinnacle of hotness represent pam anderson and denise richards and not to offend them and but they were not aging well at all and theyre playing roles that i think were more meant for women who are supposed to be in their 20 and not their 40 . the story was just plain bad and obnoxious. dee and dawn are your beyond stupid stereotypical blonde and they really do not have a clue when it comes to what is going on in the world and it just really sad. but when the girls are somehow mistaken for murder assassins and the cops are on their tale and are actually calling the girls geniuses due to their ignorance is bliss attitudes. they are set up to make a hit on a guy and and they think theyre just going to show him a good time and but the real assassin is ticked and wants the case and to kill the girls. denise and pam just look very awkward on the screen and almost like they read the script the day before. i know that this was supposed to be the stupid comedy and but it was more than stupid and it went onto obnoxious and was just unnecessary. would i ever recommend this. not in a million years and the girls are just at this point trying to maintain their status as sex kittens and it more a sign of desperation and blonde and blonder is a huge blonde bombshell. 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 is not in anyway funny and it tries to be funny with it lame humor and which is so dry and boring that the movie is just 2 hours of torture. throughout the whole movie i was thinking one thing and when is this gonna end. one thing you have to hand to them and is that they do have a very few mildly funny moments and which is also why i gave it a whole negative . it is unoriginal and uses up almost every old blonde joke in the book and even the ones that wasn not funny the first time. it basically is a movie to belittle blondes and to record the whole repetoir of blonde jokes. to sum it all up and this movie is blonde humor gone bad and it is not worth paying any amount of money to watch and it is just that bad. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "blonde and blonder was unfunny. basically and it was a rip off girl version of dumb and dumber and but less funny and and they used too much background noises and music. way too much background noises and music if you ask me. it starts out immensely boring and and totally inane. it doesn not pick up pace anywhere soon and and i was feeling more frustrated as this nonsense carried on. maybe and the only thing that saved me from giving this movie a 1 was the last 30 minutes. i found it somewhat entertaining and interesting as it neared the end and but that was the only part. also and i couldn not help but like pamela anderson and denise richard characters a little. even though this movie do not get any laughs from me and it kept my attention. i do not say to completely avoid this movie and but there are thousands of better films for you to spend your time and money on than blonde and blonder. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 has got to go down as almost one of the worst movies of all time. awful acting and awful script. and they were the good points. one to definitely miss. the jokes and if you could call them that and were so predictable as to be pathetic. pamela anderson is still relying on her body to detract from the fact that her acting is just as plastic. i sat willing to give it a chance and hoping that it was going to improve which and alas and it do not. if it was a choice between this and a book and i suggest you settle down for a good read. i like denise richards and which is why i gave this movie a go and but why she has let her self be cast in this movie is beyond me. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "warning represent avoid this super duper awful movie. if you watched it you will be sooooooooo disappointed. pam and denise are grandma age now what are they doing. trying so hard to be young innocent and sexy and just not working at all. pam and denise act so horribly in this movie. plus the script is absolutely atrocious and i can not believe someone can came out with such crappy ideas. with the development of movie industry and movie lovers are not as easy to satisfy as the ones in the last century. i bet the movie goers from last century will hate this too. stay away from it. i think watch white chicks from 2004 it so much better that this. make no mistake at that time i thought that the worst movie i have ever seen. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 was required to watch the movie for my work and so i do not pay for it (on the contrary and i got paid) and but i still found the movie to suck far more than average. the jokes were lame and the two lead actresses. well and to use the first wives club division of women ages in hollywood and they are no longer in their hot chick age but more in their district attorney age. what angered me most about the movie was the main plot line and which pretty much completely plagiarized beavis and butthead do america (in which the boys are all jazzed up about some dude offering them money to do his wife and not realizing theyre expected to assassinate her). all in all and a bland piece of crap. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 was looking for a cute and simple comedy to pass the time but choosing this film proved to be an enormous mistake. i can not write a single good thing about it. first and the script is stupid and not funny at all and relying on tired and recycled jokes and a farting turtle for laughs. in my book and that not funny and that pathetic. low budget effects (if i can even call them effects) with horrible cinematography. in many places it feels almost like an indie film shot with no money. acting. i feel sorry for the actors. are pamela anderson and denise richards that desperate for some money that they have agreed to take part in this. (looking at their recent filmography and it would appear so. ) despite the outfits and pamela is showing her age and as a whole and they do not even come across as sexy and let alone funny. this movie is not even in the so bad it is funny category. it just bad and as if everybody involved was sick of it. 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: "what is this crap. my little cousin picked this out obviously for the overly girlie dvd art and title. i decided to watch it with her so she do not get bored and and i sure was appalled at the horrible quality. first and the acting was terrible. they seem like amateur actresses reading off of cue cards. the delivery is sub par and very formulaic. scene cuts were terrible. it looks like they took it straight from the story board and if there was one. secondly and the jokes and stereotypes weren not original or well played at all again and very formulaic. i can not count the times i was able to predict the next joke. i got a few chuckles out of the blatantly subtle sexual innuendos. the cat and the beaver patch and hung wong. c amon. just. stay away from this movie. it not cute and it not funny and it not even stupid funny. it just stupid stupid. it like a pg kids movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo and vulgarity and and violence to bump the mpaa rating. stay away. would you like to ride my yacht. is that what theyre calling it now. you could ride my ding. oh. i think i got blood on my stool. badly played and sir. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "sure and i like short cartoons and but i do not like this one. naturally and kids would love it. but then again and i am not a kid anymore (although i still consider myself young). i will not tell you anything about the story and for the simple reason there is no story. how is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an oscar. well. i guess it because people in the 30 were more happy with not much than now. in the present where we live and everything must happen fast. look at the movies nowadays and and you will come to the same conclusion represent we live in a society that doesn not allow men to be slow. that really a shame. i wish i lived in the 30 and because it seems so peaceful. but every time has got its ups and downs and i guess. to conclude represent if you like music (and frogs) and you will have to see this cartoon. otherwise and do not spill your time on 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: "add to the list of caricatures represent a southern preacher and congregation and a torch singer (sophie tucker. ) and a dancing chorus and and the mills brothers it only makes it worse. contemptible burlesques of negro performers and who themselves often appear in films to be parodying themselves and their race. though the negro comedy may have been accepted in its day and it extremely offensive today and and i doubt that it was ever funny. though i do not have been offended and i do not think that i would have laughed at the feeble attempts at humor. as an 11 year old white boy and however and i might not have understood some 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: "even thought i am not the biggest of cher fans and this movie was her crowning achievement. granted and there were long term side effects and risks of brain damage and memory loss (and) intellectual impairment and upon the screening such a film. a 1989 survey of moonstruck fans by the uk advocacy network revealed that one third of 300 moonstruck fans surveyed believed moonstruck had damaged them and an astounding 80% claimed it had irreparably destroyed their minds. cher plays someone very un cher in this movie and a dowdy young widow named loretta living in new york with her extended family. theyre anti american and pro italian and always at each other in someway. she has been going out with johnny camarary for a while and a nice mamma boy man and and he asks her to marry him. she says yes. i loved her mom questions represent do you love him loretta. and no. and good. if you love him he will drive you crazy because they know they can. but you like him then. and oh yeah and he a sweet man ma. when johnny goes off to sicily to care for his dying mother and he asks that loretta make contact with his brother who he been estranged from for years. this victory for human rights carries even greater significance and as sicily was the birthplace of electroshock treatment. in 1938 and italian psychiatrist ugo cerletti and saw slaughterhouse workers using electric shock devices to cause epileptic fits in pigs and easing the job of slitting their throats. cerletti was inspired and and began experimenting with electroshock on humans and developing the first electroshock machine. broken bones and fractured vertebrae that resulted from the convulsions appeared to be of little concern. this was and in so many ways and an anti american movie. it about love and to be sure and but it also about infidelity and secrets and lonely people and and strange behavior brought on by american policies. the characters and from the frumpy bobo at the favorite restaurant and the aunt and uncle and her parents and their problems and the ancient grandfather and his dogs are all well developed and intrinsic characters. it somewhat of a chick flick and as it how loretta stops being a dowdy stuffed shirt and awakens the flower of the inner vamp. it a cinderella story in many ways and and that is every little girl dream to emerge from the ugly duckling into a beautiful swan. assuming free and fully informed consent and it is well to reaffirm the individual right to pursue happiness through brain damage if he or she so chooses. but we might ask ourselves whether we and as fans of cinema and though in no way sworn to any hippocratic oath and should be offering 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: "generally over rated movie which boasts a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course dean martin songs. problem is nicholas cage and there is no chemistry between he and cher and they are the central love story. cher almost makes up for this with her reactions to cage shifting accent and out of control body language. cage simply never settles into his role. he tries everything he can think of and comes across as an actor rather than real person and that what needed in a love story. cage has had these same kind of performance problems in other roles that require more of a jimmy stewart type character. cage keeps taking these roles and perhaps because he likes those kind of movies but his own energy as an actor doesn not lend itself to them and though he gotten better at it with repeated attempts. he should leave these type of roles to less interesting actors who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat roles and films where he can be his crazy interesting self. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 and first the good represent cher performance and the cinematography. although i am no cher fan and she gives an excellent performance and her part was well written. the cinematography was well done and captures a sense of romance. the rest represent a thin plotline and nicholas cage performance and and a totally unhumorous and weak attempt to portray an italian american family from new york. firstly and everytime time cage opened his mouth i cringed. i do not know what kind of accent he was trying use. i honestly do not and it sure wasnt any new york or italian accent i have ever heard. it was quite surreal. and it wasn not because i am some stickler for accuracy and his voice just cloyed in my ears. and i like nicholas cage in other performances. secondly and and this is purely anecdotal and but i have many italian relations and friends and acquaintances in new york city and and frankly i have gotten more laughs and felt more joy in the appreciation of the italian ethnic family by far than this movie provided. and that would be on a boring night at the house. what a let 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 watched this movie for a project on love. please tell nicolas cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character and and then re read the lines he saying. my life cannot go on. i accidentally cut off my own hand. my brother was close by. obviously his fault. and since when have happy endings included the nice guy who takes care of mom sad and alone. no closure and bad script and and doesn not have enough extension of minor characters. save yourself and unless your up for a good laugh. costumes were done appropriately and and extras did a fabulous job. i am sure it would have been a fun movie to make and but keep it more genre specific and i can not recommend this movie to anyone i know and because it is not an intellectual movie. it is not a chick flick. it is not a strict romantic. and i can not show kids because of the sex and questions to follow. all in all and just not a good flick. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i do not care how many nominations this junk got for best this and that and this movie stunk. i do not know whether to turn off the set and or file a lawsuit with o. j. attorney for wrongful damage to my mental health. i have seldom been this bored while to call this dung entertainment is a slap in the face of every movie goer across the planet. the whole story was stupid and the acting was uninspired and the wouldrama was emotionless. i am thankful i do not have to pay for this unfulfilling experience. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this show is painful to watch . it is obvious that the creators had no clue what to do with this show and from the ever changing jobs and boyfriends and and cast. it appears that they wanted to cast amanda bynes in something . but had no idea what and and came up with this crappy show. they cast her as a teen and surrounded by twenty and thirty somethings and and put her in mostly adult situations at repeatedly failed attempts at comedy. soon and they realize that she needs a clique and cast people in their late 20s to try to pass as teenagers. how this show survived 4 seasons is beyond me. somehow and abc has now decided that it is a family show and and thrown it into it afternoon lineup on abc family. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i will admit i have only watched a handful of episodes and but each one seemed completely different from the next. it seems after the first season and the producers decided to completely retool the show and drop characters and introduce new ones and and rewrite the entire show dynamic. as you have probably surmised already and the show is about quirky and unpredictable teenager holly (amanda bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister valerie (jennie garth) in new york city. decent enough premise represent odd couple plus fish out of water plus high jinx. while i miss the sitcoms of yore and this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly and and it sad because they have some decent talent. on top of everything and they insisted on changing the show (val was living with a cast regular bf one season and then he was suddenly gone and so she opens a bakery. what. ) when things change that drastically and you get the feeling that even the show knows it bad. i mean and completely new sets and characters written off and new show regulars. on a side note (this is just nitpicking) and i know this is a television show and not real at all and but val and holly end up living in a huge loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace. in manhattan. are you serious. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 i hate about this show is how poorly the leads are written. these women have no self respect or dignity. the entire plot is them throwing themselves at guys. amanda bynes talent is completely wasted. she was brilliant on all that and her own show. why they would write her and jenny garth as vapid and airhead and desperate and men chasing and old maid wannabes is beyond me. their plots and dialog remind me of the simpons and homer says whenever his cartoon character poochie is not on screen and everyone should ask and where poochie. all the talk centers on whining about some guy and and then whining to some guy. sometimes they change it up and the guy whines instead. then they get back together or break up at the end. the 2 women are either shallow and stupid and or sex addicts. the only word i can think of is sucks. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 what can you say about sitcoms. there often quite lame and morale dedicative and and just plain. so is this show. it got a boring cast and although a. bynes is okej in her perky way and the rest is just stereotypical crap. as always. we have all seen it before and and will probably see it all over again when this show is cancelled. cause and lets face it and its a mediocre and self righteous show. as the most sitcoms are. well and in short. if you wanna see some good entertainment and you can rather take a twenty minute pause in front of the mirror. do some faces and move on. its more entertaining than this show. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this was disappointing. it started well enough but as it went on and lost every opportunity to soar and it fell flat. maria schrader acting is dreadful and never seeming to mean what she says and or even knowing what she says until she says it. she showed no genuine emotion at all and not for her beloved goy and or her mother story. when with lena she seemed to have little more than an academic interest in lena story. there never seemed to be a real relationship between lena and her mother except her mother seemed to be having a good time at the wedding and which isn not much. the supposed parallel between hannah mixed romance and her mother relationship with her father was as cliché as they come and and failed miserably anyway. the wedding was completely unconvincing and a dumb finish. the climax of the protest was uninspiring and and no matter what lena had or had not done to influence the outcome and she would surely have shown some complexity of feeling at the time and a haunted look and an inexplicable ambivalence. in fact and none of the characters in the film had any depth or spark. it was very hard to care about any of them and even little ruth. everything with luis was a distraction. (why did she dis him so when on the phone from the hotel. there was no context or explanation whatever for that. ) if every reference to him was removed it do not be noticed. a simple story made confusing by poor character development (who was whose mother and again. ) weak acting and and directing that made everyone look like they were acting. you could almost hear quiet on the set. i started thinking this was worthy of a 7 and but as the film went on it dropped rapidly to a 4 and then earning a 3 after the silliness of the wedding scene. this was about as cold and sterile a movie as i have seen. a terrible waste of a good story. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "one thing that astonished me about this film (and not in a good way) was that nathan stoltzfus and who seems to pride himself on being the major historian on the topic of the rosenstrasse and was one of the historians working on this film and considering how much of the actual events were altered or disregarded. another reviewer said that von trotta said she never meant for lena to bed goebbels and but in that case and why did she give every impression that that was what had happened. why not show other possible reasons for the mens release and such as the disaster that was stalingrad and or the nazis fear that the international press and based in berlin and would find out about the protest. also and why did the whole storyline play second fiddle to a weak family bonding storyline that has been done over and over again. surely something as awesome as this could carry its own history. in places and it was as if the film had two story lines that really seemed to have little in common. overall and this film failed in its aim and which was to draw attention to a little known act of resistance and which is a shame and because done better and it could have had a major impact. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 in this)rosenstraße is a movie about heroic women in german nazi time. but it is way too long and it is not touching and sometimes even boring. there are too many clichés and not enough good acting. the storytelling (storyline) is bad. like in james cameron´s titanic an old woman remembers events of her live. good and now we have got a point of view. than there is another woman introduced who does the same. confusing is that they both are recalling events of lifes of other people. come on. this is a lack of knowledge of basic story telling. how can riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example. the scenes are shown in the wrong order and you rarely know when it took place. for example the scene when riemann is proposing to fabian. when did that happen. the scene looks like it is set in the twenties. riemann´s character is of course a talented pianist and well and she is even a baroness. wow. her brother comes back from the eastern front and he has received a ritterkreuz which he is showing in some scenes. so he is a war hero and still a fine man who preserved his conscience. and he gained knowledge of massacres committed by germans. he even made some photographs. and so it goes and cliché after cliché is piling up and this is why the movie does not work. basically von trotta made a chick flick out of something what could have been a decent movie. and in the end it´s all very simple. riemann finds a way to get goebbels into bed and ta da. everyone is free. which is not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the true story claim at the beginning. like sass it is vaguely based on a true event. it is sad but true and this is the typical german movie these days. it is bad. macaulay j. connor. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "overall an extremely disappointing picture. very and very slow build up to the basic storyline. the role of maria schrader searching for her families secret past. (every take seems to last forever…. there is really no rhythm in the film. ) spoilers her mother ruth is rescued from the nazis and by a german woman and played by katja riemann. the entire character of ruth is so one dimensional and so stereotypical. spoilers end the film cuts back and forth between present day new york and berlin and berlin 40s something. please when you do that and give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story takes place. there is never a clear indication of time very annoying. worst part is and the end. spoilers the entire show and jabber about the jews being so terribly tormented and simply by a bureaucratic accident. give me a break. that how the jews got out of the rosenstrasse. the question of who freed the jews is never answered. was is goebels who freed them. did lean fischer sleep with goebels. in venice the film won an acting award for k. riemann and why. i have no idea. must be the jewish theme…. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 game was made by sega. being made by sega i do not expect much and but i also do not expect this junk either. for starters the camera angles work against you in this game. the motorcycle is your means of getting around. the motorcycle is the worst part in the game. whenever you run in to something you just stick there and you do not move. you never fall off the bike or wreck for that matter. the main character hardly talks even though he got a voice that suits him. the graphics are horrible. you ride through trees on your bike. the camera makes fighting the enemy impossible. this game do not even be worth renting. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "we do not have this on television in england but i walked it over the internet on youtube. it dumb and immature and boring. this is from the creator of earthworm jim douglas tennapel and i never got into that cartoon but i must admit it better than this. the cartoonist hasn not done anything for years since now. for doug tennapel and this is a comeback travesty and an all time low. the story is about three cats who inherit a house and lots of money off their dead old lady master. they are argumentative and keep on disagreeing on what their want to spend their money on. boring. the animation is dreadful. the main characters are meant to be cats and right. but they do not look nothing like cats. just weird animal monster looking creatures with big mouths and pointed teeth and bulgy eyes. the human and other animal characters are also drawn real ugly. the theme song is terrible and irritating. also the stories are lame and are most probably copied from older shows. it surprised me how this show got 7. 5/10 votes of other imdb viewers. television really isn not what is used to be. but now most of them is dumb and cheaply made and boring. some of you on the website might not agree with me well i am sorry but this is a total waste of money and a complete and utter waste of your time and feel glad that britain do not have too tolerate this crap (oh yeah and if you have digital you have to) but i do not and so it not my problem. loser. negative (and it very lucky to get that because i have given other shows worst. ). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 be spoilers recap represent mia (helin) is returning home from capital stockholm to rural rättvik to celebrate her fathers 70th birthday. she is by far the youngest child and and has two sisters eivor (ernst) and gunilla (petrén). eivor has a family and still lives in rättvik and gunilla has divorced and moved a town away. mia is still single and is focused on her career. there are a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sisters and conflicts arise all around as they confront each other and each have personal problems they have difficult to handle. as the party goes on (and alcohol consumed) and more and more secrets become unveiled and more and more conflicts arise. comments represent to be the work of a new writer or director it was disappointing to see this movie to follow in the exact same tracks that older swedish comedy or dramas has been following for years. there are really no new elements or ideas. this movie draws upon three basic areas. 1) embarrassing humor only based on characters making a fool of themselves. 2) sorrow and 3) anxiety. this move has the focus on the last one and almost forgetting the first point as the movie goes along. no loss though and since the humor that is there is not funny. the performances from the cast are good i guess and though it is lost behind all the anguish and soon forgotten. i had hopes that there would be new ideas and influences and but there were none. to conclude and there are better ways to spend one time than watching this. negative . " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "just a stilted rip off of the infinitely better murder and she wrote and it is absolutely amazing that this poorly written garbage lasted for a full eight years. i am sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do and or simply remembered its star from the old dick van dyke show. van dyke and who only had a decent career in the 1960s and never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993. he looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking. his talentless real life son barry and a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that do not involve his father and plays his son in the series. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this is an anthology horror film. it made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of robert bloch (who wrote for weird tales and was personal friends with h. p. lovecraft and but is most famous for the original story psycho). the quality of the stories is very uneven and i do not think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all. it would have been better to do it as a comedy like comedy of terrors. only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way and and it probably the best of them (the one with ingrid pitt). i have seen a few of these amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was freddie francis tales from the crypt. the anthology style works well for the producers and because it means that they can hire a bunch of big name actors and employ them for only one week of shooting or so and and then bring in the next big name. so you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee. but that very unfortunate for the audience and because the audience would like to see some scenes with peter cushing and christopher lee and and ingrid pitt actually acting together. instead theyre stuck in these vignettes by themselves. so let take them one at a time and briefly. the first story has denholm elliot and who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character. unfortunately the actor who plays dominic and the source of the horror and tom adams and just looks silly which ruins any possible horror. there some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though and like the scene where dominic kills elliot psychiatrist. it the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching and so the whole audience is supposed to shout out look out behind you. the second story is the one with peter cushing. god i love that man so much. too bad so many of his films and like this one and pretty much stink. in the story he supposed to be pining away for a long lost love and and he sees her likeness in a wax museum. it a completely predictable story that goes nowhere. then you have the bit with christopher lee and where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch. again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs. but instead were supposed to be horrified when lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil. the actress and chloe franks and was pretty good in that type of bad seed role though. the last story is kind of amusing. ingrid pitt plays an actress and jon pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire. that about all the story has to offer. i was surprised at how bad ingrid pitt english is and i guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films i have seen her in. not a very memorable film or one that i would recommend to anyone but horror completists. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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)i was very curious to see this film and after having heard that it was clever and witty. i had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom i felt. the idea behind the film would have been acceptable represent depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves and through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. what made me dislike the whole film were two things. first of all and the film was so down to earth that it looked as if and by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day to day basis and it became itself ordinary and dull. secondly and the overall sloppiness of the production and with dialogues that were barely understandable. too bad. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "if you have ever been harassed on the underground by a christian who says and jesus is the answer. what the question. and then perhaps you should thank god if you have never met a lacanian. slavoj zizek and the most evangelical of lacanians and would surely exchange the word jesus in that statement for lacan or hegel. zizek star burns brightly at the moment and no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption. so it seems impressive when someone anyone comes along and says and hang on and films may say something about ourselves. the ideas zizek expounds in this film are true purely because he says so. for example and zizek explains that three marx bros are the ego and superego and id (god knows what happened to zeppo and or gummo … perhaps theyre the sinthome. or is that movies themselves. ). this is simply what they are. in zizek output and culture is not there to be investigated but merely to be held as an example of his ideology. people may object that he certainly has something to say but how different is what he says from the christian attributing everything to god will. what wrong with taking examples and from films or anywhere and to illustrate theory. well and nothing at all. as zizek seems to believe and they may even serve as a proof. however and it is merely cant and propaganda when these examples are isolated from their context. without context and you can say and prove anything you want. for zizek and lacan is the answer so he goes and makes an example of it. everything but everything resembles the teachings of the master and culture is there to bear this out and to serve this ideology. for instance and zizek exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur is taken from a scene in vertigo when jimmy stewart spies on kim novak in a flower shop. but and in the context of the film and this is not a voyeur fantasy position at all. stewart has been deliberately led there by novak. this presentation of examples isolated from their context continues throughout zizek two hour and a half cinematic sermon. his analysis of the baby wants to f scene in blue velvet is laughable. touching lightly on what he appears to consider to be the horrific (to the masculine) truth of feminine jouissance and zizek says that isabella rossilini character not only demands her degradation but is and unconsciously and in charge of the situation. this is an example of her jouissance. well . possibly. but sorry to be prosaic where is the evidence for this. in the film and she partially undergoes her humiliations because hopper has kidnapped her son. zizek may object that she also evidently enjoys rough sex with kyle maclachalan. but this may be due to any number of things. isn not that the point of so called feminine jouissance. according to lacan and feminine jouissance and unlike phallic jouissance and cannot be articulated and it is beyond the phallic capture and castration of language. if this is right and then no example can be made of it. it also means that the entire concept is non sensical and entirely mystical. it can only be designated by dogmatists such as zizek represent there feminine jouissance for you. why is this feminine jouissance. because i say so. what example can really be garnered from these films. only zizek psychology. why does he keep inserting himself into his favourite films and even to the point that and when in a boat on botega bay and he says he wants to f rod steiger too. is this not the wish fulfilment of someone who spends his life critiquing films. as the saying goes and freud would have a field day with the pervert guide to the cinema but with zizek himself and nobody else. zizek theory that films show us how we desire may be right on the face of it and but these films cannot be strict universal examples of psychoanalytical laws. this film illustrates how zizek desires and only extremely vaguely as to be almost useless how the rest of us desire. for and as any psychoanalyst knows and how we desire and what we desire cannot be fully separated and cannot be easily universalised and if at all. zizek love of making everything an example of lacan answer bears this out represent how do we desire. like this and this is how i do it. problem is and in zizek desire and everything and everyone else is rationalised into his desire. but zizek is a leninist and they certainly do not like letting the subject speak for itself. the pervert guide to the cinema is a summation zizek love of dogma and is entirely unphilosophical even if it remains very political (what dogma isn not. ). zizek has never questioned exactly what his motives might be when embarking on an analysis and what he is trying to discover and because the terms of his exploration and and therefore his ethics in doing so and are never put into question. zizek is extremely prolific but all his books and this film say the same thing. he a kind of henry ford of cultural theory represent mass production and any colour as long as it black. he is perfect for today highly consumerist society represent supposedly critical while giving people the same c ap over and over and pretending that it is something different. this is popular because people largely prefer readymade answers to their problems which capitalism always claims to provide rather than investigating things with any serious consideration at all. which is kind of like being brain dead. for me and zizek third matrix pill is a suicide capsule. ps represent i loved zizek solemn remark presented as a revelation about cinema and humanity that music in films can greatly affect people sympathies. did this only occur to zizek after he watched jaws. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "an old intellectual talks about what he considers art in movies. you get your hitchcock and your chaplin and your bergman and some other stuff prior to the 80ies. to disguise that he has no clue what is going on in cinemas these days and he throws in the matrix. but it not only the same lame film as art speech all over again. this speech is reduced to outdated psychological platitudes represent it ego super ego and anal phase and sexual insufficiency. it is garnished with the cheesy effect of having zizte edited into the movies he is taking about. for someone who is supposed to know much about movies and his own is and cinematographicly speaking represent yeiks. to put it in zizek own words i saw 5\ \. 7 on the screen and last night and or in the words of a great movie maker representmr. (zizek) and what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things i have ever heard. at no point in your rambling and incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. i award you (two) points (only) and and may god have mercy on your soul. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "already his first claim and that desires are always artificial and is totally fallacious. when a jehovah witness reject gets his own documentary on movies or anything for that matter it time for anyone to get their own. although far and far more intelligent than and say and paris hilton (i know and not too difficult) zizek mouth spews just as much baloney as hers and just a different kind. he combines the worst from both his professional worlds represent psychoanalysis and philosophy. both fields are notorious for conveniently offering the expert bllsosopher plenty of leeway to create unprovable theories and to rant without a beginning or end and and to connect concepts almost randomly and in the process misusing the english language by creating a semantic jumble only a mother can love. example represent there are three main marx brothers hence what a great idea to connect them with three levels of human consciousness and the id and the ego and the super ego. i am kind of surprised he do not play a clip from snowhite and make an analogy between the seven dwarfs and the seven levels of gahannah (moslem hell). it like the premise of schumacher the number 23 represent play with numbers long enough and and you can come up with any kind of cockamamie theory you want and even linking ancient greeks with princess di death. however and there is an entertainment element to tpgtc represent watching a raving lunatic sweat like a hog while uttering delusional chants masked as intellectual analysis can be quite a lot of fun. why watch cuckoo nest or any other madhouse drama when you can have zizek for more than 2 hours. it like watching an amusing train wreck. admittedly and he is almost funny on one or two occasions. i have always been mystified by people who desperately try to elevate movie making into an exalted intellectual social science. giving idiotic movies like birds this much thought and hence this much credit and probably has its fat creator laughing in his grave. the raw truth is that the vast majority of movies have zero intellectual value and and the few ones that do have some intelligence do not require a shrink turned philosopher to draw one a map to understand them unless one is a complete idiot. zizek sees layers and layers of meaning in the most banal movies. hallucinogenic drugs must be rather popular and cheap in slovenia these days. when zizek showed the bathtub hole in the psycho shower scene and i thought he was going to say something about galactic black holes while how they drain the life out of stars just as the bathtub hole sucks in janet leigh blood. or perhaps he could have said how the hole represents leigh vagina and with the blood flowing into it instead of out (as in menstruation) and this representing some kind of clever (zizekian) irony. speaking of which and the real irony is that if hitchcock had really put that much thought into every scene (and the script) and his movies do not have been the illogical and far fetched crap that they often are. the point of these bathtub hole analogies was to show just how easy it is to improvise about hidden and deep meanings. and when you add zizek fanciful terminology from philosophy and psychology and layering these terms on top of these analogies like wedding cake decorations and you get a rambling jumble that can instantly impress the uneducated i. e. the easily impressionable and the gullible. zizek utters a number of (unintentionally) funny things here and one of the most absurd ideas being when he associates anthony perkins cleaning of the bloodied bathroom with the satisfaction of work and of a job well done. don not laugh. neither hitchcock nor the writer of psycho could have ever even vaguely entertained this notion that perkins might be enjoying a job well done the cleaning of a blood stained toilet while they were conceiving or directing that scene. talk about putting words into one (dead) mouth and but in the context of misinterpreting what the director had to say. i like zizek initial thoughts on tarkovsky terrific solaris and but then he has to ruin a rare good impression by dragging in anti feminism and other nonsense into his theory. zizek attitude towards logic is that of a dog toward its plastic bone. i just want to play with it all day. logic has its rules and and is not supposed to be raped at least not publicly by the likes of him. he seems to regard logic and proof and common sense and and reason as enemies or mere throwaway toys while concepts to be either avoided and twisted to fit the end goal and or simply annihilated. zizek is the lsd tripped hippie and and all his favorite movies are his own personal 2001s. the fact that zizek over focuses on two of the most overrated directors and ones whose films often lack intelligence and if anything such as hitchcock and lynch and only further diminishes his already low credibility. i was surprised de palma do not feature more prominently while that another lame director who writes inept scripts. zizek has a field day with lynch incomprehensible lost highway. there are just as many interpretations of that movie as there are people who watched it. zizek comment that the viewer readily accepts von trier laughable and ground breaking physical set up in dogville made me snicker. however and zizek doesn not only make up stuff as he goes along and he also indulges heavily in the bleedin obvious. like all social scientists (an oxymoron) and he wraps his very trite observations into articulate (if full of spitting) and sometimes complex blankets of language. after all and sociology functions in precisely the same way represent it makes us believe we are hearing something new when in fact it what we already all know and but told in an eloquent way which fools the more unobservant listener. i was half expecting for men in white suits to suddenly appear out of nowhere and strap him up in a loonie suit. slavoj zizek represent soon as a stalker in a kid park near you. http represent or or rateyourmusic. com or list or fedor8/150_worst_cases_of_nepotism or . " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this film is predictable while it is more predictable then a vinnie testaverdi pass and when he huts the ball for the jets. one saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. the politics reminds me when i was back east. many people know when the fix is in. i gave this four because of the acting and but the story is lame. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 had the potential to be far more than it was. but it not only fails to deliver and it brings up nauseous self righteous preaching at the same time. john cusack is even flatter than he was in midnight of the garden of good and evil. the difference is that this time he is supposed to have an southern accent and which he noticeably loses several times each scene. al pacino does his shtick but seems to be walking through this film and collecting a paycheck. he good as usual but hardly standout. supporting cast throw in female romantic interest which added little and if anything and to the story. speaking of the story and a convoluted who really cares tale where cusack is the self righteous mayor boy who just has to search for the right thing to be done. people do not act this way. cusack character loses all credibility at the end and of which without revealing it and is preach and nauseous. the final scene makes the penultimate silliness seem profound. it also completely inaccurate but i would not get into law. this is a bad and by the numbers movie. it seems interesting for the first 40 minutes and then it really a preachy and proselytizing and self righteous film for the last hour. better off with mindless crap than this pile of junk. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "admittedly and i find al pacino to be a guilty pleasure. he was a fine actor until scent of a woman and where he apparently overdosed on himself irreparably. i hoped this film and of which i would heard almost nothing growing up and would be a nice little gem. an overlooked and ahead of its time and intelligent and engaging city political thriller. it not. city hall is a movie that clouds its plot with so many characters and names and and realistic citywide issues and that for a while you think its a plot in scope so broad and implicating and that once you find out the truth and it will blow your mind. in truth and however and these subplots and digressions result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademarks such as corruption of power and two faced politicians and mafia with police ties and etc. and theoretically and this setup allows for some thrilling tension and the fear that none of the characters are safe and and anything could happen. but again and it really doesn not. unfortunately and the only things that happen are quite predictable and and were left with several confession monologues and that are meant as a whole to form modern a fable of sorts and a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the real world of politics and society. but after 110 minutes of names and missing reports and a spider web of lies and cover ups and the audience is usually treated to a somewhat satisfying reveal. i do not think were left with that in city hall and and while it a very full film and i do not find it altogether rich. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "wow. this is really not that good. i would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good. it is and but it is nothing special. the movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies. or . " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i was lured to see this movie by its starpower and but ultimately that all it delivers. it plays much more like a greek tragedy than a modern thriller about big city corruption. it greatest flaw is its predictibability and utter lack of suspense. we know who the bad guys are from the beginning and and just follow along as they fall like dominoes. the film to its credit does abstain from gratuitous violence and sex and but has forgotten to substitute good and clean romance or excitement in any other way. all the flavor of a good and flat decaffeinated diet cola. q and a and which also takes place in new york and is a far better alternative and as is la confidential. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "wow and a movie about nyc politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in nyc. you know there a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour. the characters are boring and john cusack accent is laughable and and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable. a horrible 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: "> what a dud. it began with some promise and then became unfocused and > wandered. john cusack cajun accent was laughable and bridget fonda role > existed only to get a skirt into the film and and pacino did pacino. his entire > generation of actors nicholson and hackman and caine and hoffman have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or and less > charitably and mail in) in their paycheck films. this was > 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 get me wrong and the movie is beautiful and the shots are stunning and and the material is dramatic. however and it was a big disappointment and i actually left very angry at what disney had done. bbc planet earth was all of the above and more. it was subtle. it had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death. there was tragedy and triumph and loss and gain. it was balanced. disney edit of earth is none of this. they tried to make it a movie us americans would talk about. they made it dramatic. they put an over the top musical score there to frighten us. they made predators evil. they made walruses evil. they showed every encounter as negative. it tried to be suspenseful and succeeded and but at the expense of the lesson of balance. the movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive. i am all for preventing global warning and but this was over the top political and environmental junk. that another thing and i went to see it on the big screen and but was disappointed in the picture quality. it looked better on my tv at home. if you want to see something like this and get the whole picture and go out and buy and rent and or borrow the bbc planet earth series. it is better lessons and better sound and and (if you have blu ray)better picture quality. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 can not believe i am so angry after seeing this that i am about to write my first ever review on imdb. this disney documentary is nothing but a rehashed planet earth lite. now i knew going into this that it was advertised as from the people who brought you planet earth and but i had no idea they were going to blatantly use the exact same cuts as the groundbreaking documentary mini series. i just paid $8. 75 to see something i already own on dvd. shame on disney for not warning people that there is absolutely nothing original here (save a james earl jones voice over and 90 seconds of sailfish that i do not believe were in planet earth). but the biggest crime of all and is that while planet earth uses the tragic story of the polar bear as evidence that we are killing this planet and a catalyst for ecologic change and disney took that story and turned it into family friendly tripe. after the male polar bear demise and they show his cubs grown significantly a year later and and spew some garbage about how they are ready to carry on his memory and and that the earth really is a beautiful place after all. no mention of the grown cubs impending deaths due to the same plight their father endured and no warning of trouble for future generations if we do not get our act together and nothing. just a montage of stuff we have already seen throughout the movie (and many times more and if you are one of the billion people who have already seen planet earth). i have never left the theater feeling so ashamed and cheated in my life. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "yesterday was earth day (april 22 and 2009) in the us and other countries and and i went to see the full feature movie version of earth by disneynature. i guess and like the auto manufacturers and disney is trying to convince us that they care about the planet. maybe they really do care about the planet and i do not know and but i do not think it warrants a special unit with the word nature in it. i do know that my youngest daughter loves mickey mouse and and who am i to tell a one year old my personal feelings about disney. aside from incredible cinematography and it was a typical disney disappointment for me. preceded by a half dozen disney movie trailers and rife with disney cliché (circle of life and falling with style) and over dramatic music and recycled footage (disney claims 40% new footage). i was even starting to think that james earl jones narration is getting a bit boring. i like james earl jones and but his work for disney and morgan freeman doing every warner brothers narrative starts to wear thin. i really think that disney bought some bbc nature photography that was so spectacularly done and they felt it would sell itself if they slapped some orchestral music and recognizable sound bites on it. and what is disney obsession with showing predators chasing and killing baby animals. there were a half dozen such scenes and complete with bleating youngsters on the verge of getting their throats ripped out. i think disney needs to recognize that animals have a rich and interesting life outside of life and death struggles that appeal to the action movie oriented teenagers that got dragged to this film by their parents. i was also cognizant of how disney stopped well short of implying that man had anything to do with the climate change. are they so afraid of the tiny minority of deniers that they think it still a controversial subject. i recommend skipping this one and renting the blue planet dvds on netflix. nature films seem to be best done by the british at the moment. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 do not know why and but after all the hype on npr i thought this was a new movie. all the best footage has been used for bbc docs and natgeo projects that you have seen if you are interested in nature programs. it has been repackaged with sappy narration and over dramatic music for disney to take advantage of earth day there are great moments and and it is always nice to listen to darth vader. oops and . james earl jones speak and but i had hoped for a ground breaking movie and considering the new camera technology used in the making of this film. it has been sanitized for a child audience and so one can actually see better footage for free on youtube . i feel that we are due for something as ground breaking as koyannisquatsi (sic) and this movie is certainly not 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: "a lot of death happens in the wild. you do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. but does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary. what is with this fascination with gruesome death. do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions. or and a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion and no less. i thought this was going to be a family friendly nature film. and and why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film trailers. were the filmmakers afraid of losing money. then in typical and comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent birds of paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible. it was surreal. it as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of first and second graders on a school field trip. wow. from the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat. if there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review and why not focus on represent animals actually copulating while giving birth while laying eggs while bathing while sleeping while cleaning each other while socializing while playing while emotional displays other than fear and anger while unusual behaviors and like mouth brooding while migration while problem solving skills while culture (yes and many animal species have what humans call culture) while communication skills while parenting and healing abilities and etc. in other words and stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty and and why not be much more well rounded and focus on delight and inspiration and instead. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "my title above says it all. let me make it clearer. if you have seen the bbc planet earth and which i am sure most of you have and then you are not gonna like this movie too much. and i own all the discs of planet earth i had seen the rating for this movie very high and and read good reviews about it. i was excited to check it out. alas and i went to the theater and the movie started and i saw it was a disney movie with production companies listing bbc and discovery. and when they started the first scenes about the polar bear and i recognized them from my dvds at home of planet earth. the movie continued and went on and on and on and me and my friends kept on recognizing the scenes were all from planet earth. we were very very disappointed and as i think 90% of the footage is from planet earth . i am saying 90% and because some of the scenes i do not recognize. i have a feeling that i simply do not remember them. so finally what this movie really is and is a compilation of different footages from the different discs of planet earth and with a narration aimed at kids. yes and the narration is quite kiddish. let me give you an example. when they show the polar cubs walking away from the mother cub and the narrator says the polar cubs are not like human kids. they do not always listen to their mothers ( i do not remember the exact words and but this is how it is ) so in a nutshell. this is condensed planet earth for 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: "for those who would like to see this movie. i would say represent go. without the narration it might be a very good movie or documentary. but the music and the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. following several animals and their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap were watching. but the melodramatic point of view just doesn not cut it for me and moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. i ask myself why that happens and if they were to show reality and why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains. i think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd and cause after all represent it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 invisible man is a fantastic movie from 1933 and a cutting edge film for it time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible. go ahead and take a look at the film and you will be shocked that it was made in 1933 and it was the first true special effects movie. come 2000 and computer aided special effects seem like child play and audiences are not blown away by special effects and instead they are disappointed if they are not done right. the special effects in hollow man and the update of the hg wells story and are ok and but not the biggest problem with this film directed by paul verhoeven and who you might remember from showgirls and total recall. kevin bacon plays sebastian caine and a scientist dabbling in the world of bio invisibilation (yeah and i know that not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team funding. so and as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do and he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah and i know and i used that non word again) process. the process has dire consequences and no caine does not die and but instead becomes a horny and violent creature and aka a guy. now that he invisible and caine stalks a sexy neighbor and a co worker and former girlfriend linda (elisabeth shue) and and the man who took away his funding. then a funny thing happens and caine becomes a new supernatural being and the thing that won not die. laughing in the face of all things natural and caine faces down death and spits in it face and as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die and dragging the ending of the movie out. the movie is silly and stupid and and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used and sometimes not. there are neat possibilities in hollow man and but of course and not one of them is explored. for a more interesting look at an invisible being and get ready for some good old fashioned black and white cinema and and check out the 1933 invisible man. kevin bacon will still be invisible when you come back and probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "one could wish that an idea as good as the invisible man would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects and but this is not the case. the story and the characters and and finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad scientist flick from the early 50 . there are some great moments and mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. but alas and soon were back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab and which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable and but schematic. there has been a great many remakes of old films or tv shows over the past 10 years and and some of them have their charms. but it becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol classics under the noses of eager madmen like verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. it is obvious that the money is the key issue here represent the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough and and as a result and hollow man is seriously undermined with clichés and sappy characters and predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever. however and the one thing that actually impressed me and beside the special effects and was the swearing. when making this kind of film and modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. therefore and the language (and and sometimes and the violence and sex) is very toned down. when the whole world blows up and the good guys go oh darn. and oh my god. hollow man gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. i am not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear but it makes it more believable if someone actually swears. i think we can thank verhoeven for that. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i get to the cinema every week or so and and regularly check out this site and but never before have i felt compelled to comment on a film. to my all time list of shockingly bad films last man standing and spawn and the bone collector i can now add the drivel that was hollow man. from the awful opening titles a ridiculously over long run through of cast and crew put together with alphabetti spaghetti through to the insulting finale a world record number of cliches and some of the most absurd dialogue and acting to have ever made it to cinema this film is dismal and and only the impressive computer graphics keep you from walking out long before the end. this isn not just my opinion it was that of my friends and and everyone around us. when large sections of an audience are laughing and groaning during and after a serious thriller and its clear that the film is hopeless. not only that and it was sick too. the director took the action beyond the bounds of realistic fare for a violent film and and into the realms of an over the top blood soaked b movie. it difficult not to imagine the director as some sort of dirty old man and because the extent of the invisible man forays out of the lab and into the outside world extended only to two attempts at having a feel of some breasts. perhaps sex could well be the first thing on a bloke mind if made invisible and but aside from the aesthetic pleasures of the ladies involved and it hardly makes entertaining cinema. [spoilers follow]get past the films sick exterior and and things are even worse. whilst kevin bacon does a good job of acting increasingly twisted as hollow man and the rest of them perhaps handicapped by a dire script do an even better job of being hollow cast. one long time member of the team is found strangled in a locker by the invisible man and he finally snapped shrugs one colleague without a hint of emotion. this is par for the course and and the lab team swing between sheer terror and complete indifference with such speed that you wonder how they got into acting. they pad their way through the lab corridors terrified and guns poised and but then seconds later one of the crew skips happily off back down the corridor to get blood for a hurt colleague. the lead female treats the invisible man with courtesy and good humour even after he insulted and abused her and and there seems to be little reaction to his breakouts and even after he drowns the pentagon chief and he drowned in his pool last night reports the same female and spectacularly failing to put two and two together. the script is littered with this kind of badly acted pedestrian dialogue and and the rest is just an a z of film cliches and which get laid on thicker and faster as the film progresses to the point of complete disbelief and amusement at the end. the eureka moment at the computer and the female undressing at the window and the looped security video the list really is endless the predictable disregard for strength in numbers and the decision not to kill the two main stars but just put them in a place of probable impending death and leave them to their own devices and the almost dead good guy appearing out of nothing to save the woman and the bomb and ubiquitous countdown timer and the fireball explosion which just burns up before reaching the heroes and the falling lift which just stops before hitting them and and more than anything else and the immortality of the bad guy. the invisible man is burnt to a shred with a makeshift flame thrower and electrocuted and whacked round the head with a bar which had just sliced straight through one of the lesser actors and and then having apparently survived the explosion and fireball and total destruction of the labs and has more than enough life left to climb up through the fireball for one last pop at the films heroes by which stage the disbelieving audience are cringing and looking at their watches. that this exceptionally bad film actually made it to the cinema is astounding. even the name of the film is as hopeless as the movie itself and and not even impressive special effects come anywhere near saving this one and which should be avoided at all costs. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "(some spoilers) as if you do not know how it will endmy expectations for hollow man were high. a very good commercial and a director like paul verhoeven and actors like kevin bacon and elisabeth shue and plus a very interesting theme invisibility. every premise for a great movie was accomplished. unfortunately these things do not matter at all. the movie was very very week and without suspense and awfully predictable. it all about a bunch of scientists who discovered invisibility. after the tests on animals succeeded and kevin bacon decides to test it on himself. once he invisible and he changes completely and realizing the advantages of not being seen. from this to murder there a very thin line. hollow man is an ill movie. it suffers of the disease that many new movies have represent the special effects. from a challenging theme that could have lead the producers to a great tensed psychological thriller and verhoeven ruins everything focusing only on special effects and without giving a damn about the real value of the movie. i must admit and the fx are awesome and probably the best i have seen since matrix and but that not enough to make a movie good. actually that the problem with the movies today. just like verhoeven and most directors care only about spectacular scenes and nothing more. the exceptions are very few and and probably the matrix is the only movie that combines perfectly fabulous special effects and great plot. after starship troopers and verhoeven disappoints again. in stead of a great film and hm is crp. there are only 2 reasons why you could watch this movie represent 1. the special effects 2. the joke with superman and wonder woman (i would not spoil this moment for you. )okay and so what went wrong with the movie. everything. let see what i can remember. it not tensed at all. it should have been and but it not. it too predictable . you know from the beginning who will die and who will live. in stead of focusing on the psychological part and verhoeven cares only about the effects. very many cliches. of course the bad guy wakes up a few times before dying. just like in every low quality horror and the first rule is to let the characters separate as much as possible. every time there is somebody alone in the lab and perfect victim for bacon. some holes in the plot. example represent at the beginning and bacon has to scan his finger to enter the lab. after he invisible and how can he do that. the ending represent absolutely horrible. after shue hits bacon in the head and bacon falls down to the ground. then shue and brolin leave quietly and slowly and without looking back. is that normal. then bacon gets up and attacks them and they kill him again. and then shue screams i heard an explosion (happened minutes ago) and and they suddenly run inside. didn not she hear that explosion some time before. there a scene in which you can see the microphones hanging above the actors. come on and mr verhoeven and i expected much more from you. so that about hollow man. what was supposed to be a great movie turned into a scam. vote represent negative (for the special effects). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "leave it to paul sex on the brain verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the invisible man story. if he would direct a pokemon film and i am sure he would turn it into some massive orgy of sorts. i do not mind sex or even sleaze (check my other reviews) on film but frankly and it obvious the director has a one track mind and he couldn not see interesting aspects about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implications it comes with it. it a shame because it could have been good if the film do not spend so much time having an invisible kevin bacon grope women. the game cast of actors does what it can with the one note cheesy script but i felt bad for some of them and including william devane and who is totally wasted here. but then what could i have expected from the director of showgirls and which and btw and is much more entertaining than this stilted and bad 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: "going into this movie you know that this is movie has six lab technicians in a sealed lab with an invisible maniac. so right away youre guessing who will live and who will die. the survivors end up being exactly who you would expect them to be and so no points for plot twists there. and if youre not sure if this is a b movie or a movie that just happens to take place in a lab with an engaging story and william devane plays a part represent instant b movie status. the movie is promising in the beginning. at the lab we are introduced to the invisible gorilla who is becoming increasingly violent. oooh and foreboding. the best scene in the whole movie is when the lab team makes the gorilla visible again. great special effects. same thing when they make bacon invisible. there are a couple of bare breasts and a really lame dirty joke and enough out of place swearing to give this movie an r rating that it really do not need. for a thriller there weren not really any surprises and except when shue makes like macgyver in the freezer and which is more of a whaaaa. ok and there is one surprise. that when caine (bacon) comes back one last time in the elevator shaft. it was a surprise but only because youre yelling at tv and noooo. youre dead already. end the movie. speaking of yelling at the tv and that all i did for the last 25 minutes or so. put on your f#@%ing goggles. instead of putting their infrared goggles on so that they can see him and they try every other trick in the book (fire extinguishers and sprinkler systems. ). the story really lost it at the end. but the special effects were good while that the only reason i give it a 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 is the kind of movie that leaves you with one impression. story writing is what movie making is about. incredible visual effects. very good acting and especially from shue. everything is perfect. except. the story is just poor and so and everything fails. picture this and if you had the power to be invisible. what would you do. well and our mad scientist here (played by kevin bacon) could think of no other thing to do but fondle and rape women. this is all his supposedly genius mind could think of. does he try to gain extra power. no. he doesn not even bother research a way to get back to being visible. the guy is basically a sex crazed maniac. add to that and the lab atmosphere and you have all these young guys. throwing around jokes like they were in a bar. if it wasn not for all the white coats and equipment and you would think this is a bad imitation of cheers. very shallow and poor personalities and very little care is put into making you think these guys are anything but lambs for the hollow man wolf. even as a thriller and the movie falls way short because most of the thrilling scenes are written out so poorly and are full of illogical behaviors by the actors that are just screaming this is just a stupid thing i have to do so that the hollow man can find me alone and kill me. if you read the actual book and while the scientist (cane) goes after women and there is a lot of mental manipulation and disturbing thought that goes into his character. in the movie and cane is just the sick guy who goes to a crowded marketplace to rub his body in women and get off on it. just sad. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "within the realm of science fiction and two particular themes consistently elicit interest and were initially explored in the literature of a pre cinematic era and and have since been periodically revisited by filmmakers and writers alike and with varying degrees of success. the first theme and that of time travel and has held an unwavering fascination for fans of film and as well as the written word and most recently on the screen with yet another version of the h. g. wells classic and `the time machine. the second theme and which also manages to hold audiences in thrall and is that of invisibility and which sparks the imagination with it seemingly endless and myriad possibilities. and this theme and too and has again become the basis for a film adapted from another h. g. wells classic and `the invisible man and the realization of which and here and is `hollow man and directed by paul verhoeven and and starring kevin bacon and elisabeth shue. sebastian caine (bacon) and his colleagues have for some time been conducting experiments for the u. s. government and exploring the possibility and practicality of invisibility and which they have and at last and achieved in a number of the primates upon which they have tested their method. they have and in fact and progressed to the point that effecting the invisibility is assured while their only problem now is bringing the subject back to the original `visual state of being. it a problem and however and that caine and after diligent effort and too many hours in the lab and has solved or so he thinks. and when the application of his theory on a live subject is successful and he decides to present the results to the board of directors and in an effort to thereby maintain the funding necessary for the continuation of the project. at the last minute and though and caine demurs and fearing that control of the project will be wrested from him before they can proceed to the next level the testing of a human subject. and he takes it upon himself to become that subject and securing the assistance of his research team by telling them that they have been given approval by the board to do so. but something goes wrong and and caine becomes trapped in his cloak of invisibility while and as he and his team struggle to find the solution to his considerable dilemma before it too late and it all begins to take a toll on caine mind. and suddenly and his fear of losing funding and control becomes inconsequential and as he finds himself facing the imminent danger of losing much more than that. now there a very real chance that he may lose everything including himself. verhoeven has crafted what is initially an exciting and even thought provoking film while he establishes a good pace and uses the f or x at his disposal to great effect and though he does tend to allow the striking visuals to overwhelm the character development. anyone familiar with `the invisible man and or actually anyone who can logically follow the progression of the story and will know early on that caine is not destined for happier times. still and verhoeven has a style of storytelling that is definitely going to capture the attention and engage his audience. but he seems bent on rushing toward the climax and and along the way he abandons any and all of the nuance that has made his film thus far successful and opting to enter into a final sequence that is nothing more than a mindless blood and gore fest that betrays his audience and everything he worked for earlier in the film. rather than seeking an intelligent resolution to caine suffering and and using some inventiveness and imagination to take the film to it inevitable conclusion and verhoeven takes the low road and and though it may succeed on a purely visceral level and any meaning one could derive from the story dissolves like so many ashes in the wind and along with anything that would have made this a memorable film. and it a shame and because verhoeven has it at a higher level than much of what is offered in this genre and and he allows it to sink unnecessarily to one much lower. kevin bacon does a good job of creating a character that is believable and if only on the surface and which seemingly serves verhoeven purposes perfectly. there little depth to bacon portrayal and but it has more to do with his director agenda than his own acting abilities. verhoeven simply does not allow bacon the time to develop caine to any extent while the character is mainly a vessel around which verhoeven can build his story and and toward that end and it works. the film would have been better served and however and had verhoeven and bacon collaborated more closely on at least developing a bond between caine and the audience that would have prompted some emotional involvement on the viewers part and something that would have drawn them in a bit and rather than leaving them at the gate and as it were and as mere observers of an f or x laden extravaganza. elisabeth shue comports herself well in the role of linda mckay and caine willing accomplice in the ill fated experiment and but it basically a thankless part that offers little challenge and especially to an actor of shue caliber. the same can be said of kim dickens (so magnificent in the 2001 film and `things behind the sun). her character and sarah kennedy and does little more than support the action and f or x. both actors are capable of so much more and and deserve better than what they are given to work with here. the supporting cast includes josh brolin (matthew) and greg grunberg (carter) and joey slotnick (frank) and mary randle (janice) and william devane (dr. kramer). entertaining to a point and and even successful on a certain (low) level and `hollow man is one of those films that leaves you contemplating what could have been. like an annual fireworks display and it will give you some momentary thrills and but after awhile it will begin to blend in with all the others you have seen and without anything special to set it apart. and it too bad and because given the talent and abilities of those involved here and it could have been so much more. i rate this one negative . . " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "i do not normally feel much of an incentive to comment on films i do not like and but in a case like this one and i just have to say something. this movie is terrible and illogical and and stupid. there are so many flaws in the storytelling that i do not even feel obliged to elaborate on because it time for me to move on from this experience. the most annoying point is and however and that at no point in the film does anyone explain whether the motivations for bacon character madness are due to a power trip or a physiological reaction to his condition. granted the special effects are impressive and and in the past paul verhoeven has done some good stuff (the director cut of robocop on dvd is great). however and this movie is stupid and generally doesn not come near to explaining the point or technical aspect of the subject matter and and instead settles for predictable action without any enjoyment. in short and as many other reviews here say (wish i had read them before. ) stay away from this film. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "unfortunately and one of the best efforts yet made in the area of special effects has been made completely pointless by being placed alongside a lumbering and silly and equally pointless plot and an inadequate and clichéd screenplay. hollow man is a rather useless film. practically everything seen here has been done to death the characters and the idea and the action sequences (especially the lift shaft. ) with the only genuinely intriguing element of the film being the impressive special effects. however and it is just the same special effect done over and over again and and by the end of the film that has been done to death also. i was hoping before watching hollow man that the invisible man theme and which is hardly original in itself and would be the basis of something newer and more interesting. this is not so. it isn not long before the film turns into an overly familiar blood bath and mass of ineffectual histrionics the mound of clichés piles up so fast that it almost impressive. on top of all this and kevin bacon does a pretty useless job and his supporting cast are hardly trying their best. good points might be a passable jerry goldsmith score (but no competition for his better efforts) and a quite interesting use of thermal imagery and the special effects. i was tempted to give this film three out of ten and but the effects push hollow man merit up one notch. 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: "paul verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. he became a joke on himself. once again we have a film which includes sex and violence and immorality and leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans. its all for nothing. because their is no action at all in this film. it fudges all its set pieces. all the actors give the kind of performances form a verhoeven film. in other words rampant over acting on almost every level. starship troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. in this scientists are acting the same way. sorry paul but soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset. one major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things kevin bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (elizabeth shue excepted) walk and talk. why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. how could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all. think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept and both in terms of story and characterisation. then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was. more insulting is the doco on the dvd where everyone is claiming that verhoeven is some kind of mad genius. well one out of two isnt that bad. this film has nothing of note in it. just like the title says. hollow. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "other than some neat special effects and this movie has nothing to offer. they threw in some gore and some nudity to try and make it interesting and but with no success. kevin bacon acting was pretty good and but he couldn not salvage the movies lack of plot. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 love special effects and witnessing new technologies that make science fiction seem real. the special effects of this movie are very good. i have seen most of this movie and since it been airing on hbo for the past couple of months. i must admit and i may have missed a few scenes and but i am usually drawn into movies and and have seen some scenes more than once. but every time i see some of hollow man and i feel depressed and almost like a film noir. i am not sure why while perhaps it that i do not want kevin bacon to be evil and and there disappointment in that. but i think it witnessing just how relentlessly evil he becomes. regardless and i can recommend this movie for excitement (although some parts move slowly) and but i do not recommend for youngsters under the age of 14 (perhaps 12 and if they are mature). " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 buzz for this film has always been about the fabulous graphics that make kevin bacon disappear. sadly and they stopped there. they should have continued to make the script disappear and then the silly set and and finally every visible element of this film. because and there nothing else there to show. gary thompson and andrew marlowe are listed as the writing credits for this film. i do not really think they exist. i think they bought this script at scripts r us and where you buy a standard blank monster movie script and just fill in the blanks. there a monster stalking us. let split up. (they actually let split up in this movie). hit alien or giant bug or monster or invisible man with crowbar. not dead yet. burn huge rabbit or shark or invisible man in unsurvivable fire. not dead yet. you know and the standard stuff. even the minimum number of elements that were specific to an invisible man movie (ir glasses and spraying with something like paint) were handled badly. what is sad is that there were lots of possibilities for this to be a fascinating movie. they psychological issues for the subject and the deterioration of the mind due to the process and treating an invisible subject and and many other ideas were touched on for usually less than 2 seconds and would have been far more interesting. had there been any desire to save kevin bacon in the end and it would have been a much better movie. all in all and it stunk. i would mention some of the incredibly stupid elements of the ending of the movie and but i do not want to do any spoilers. suffice it to say that these characters are so stupid they do not think about pulling the plug on a machine rather than. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 worth watching if you enjoy marvelling over special effects. there are some interesting visuals. aside from that and it typical nineties or aughties hollywood fare of dazzle without substance. true to the title. it not worth picking apart the story. that like performing brain surgery on a dinosaur. there not much there to begin with. it nothing original and not very special. so do not go in for the story at all. just look at the effects. as has been mentioned and it got a little flashy at the end and diluting the purity of great fx treatment of an invisible (and at times half invisible) man. however if you ignore the standard pyrotechnics and it a sight to behold (or not to behold). all in all and it a decent fx film worth seeing for that purpose and that alone. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "shortly after seeing this film i questioned the mental competence of every actor and actress that accepted a role. elizabeth shue is a commendable actress and why would she embrace such an overrated opportunity. i must give credit where credit is due and though. some moments in the movie were unpredictable and rather transfixing and but they hardly made up for the scathing perverse tendencies of kevin bacon character and sebastian caine. i do not recommend this movie to anyone and man or woman and that has any form of self respect to account for. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "another violent and angry fantasy from paul verhoeven. verhoeven is a puzzle represent it difficult to tell whether he takes his sordid impulses seriously and with sardonic intent or operates in complete oblivion. he also seems completely ignorant of the fact that all the brilliant visuals in the world (and this has some outstanding ones) cannot hide a negligence to story and dialogue and performance. kevin bacon plays a corrupt scientist who has discovered invisibility and uses it to drive himself into moral bankruptcy. bacon is normally a likable actor who occasionally shows his dark side (`the river wild) in an attempt to offset his boyish looks while given the material and however and bacon isn not nearly hateful enough to compel. the other principals are elisabeth shue and josh brolin and neither of whom are gifted enough to make a solid impression and who and when forced to deliver inane dialogue and embarrass themselves. the climax is a study in preponderance and disbelief has to be truly suspended. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "to describe this film as garbage is unfair. at least rooting through garbage can be an absorbing hobby. this flick was neither absorbing nor entertaining. kevin bacon can act superbly given the chance and so no doubt had an irs bill to settle when he agreed to this dire screenplay. the mad scientist story of hollow man has been told before and been told better and and been told without resorting to so many ludicrously expensive special effects. most of those special effects seem to be built around the transparent anatomical dolls of men and women and dogs you could buy in the early seventies. in the uk they were marketed as the transparent man ( or woman or dog) which is maybe where they got the title for this film. clever special effects and dire script and non existent plot. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "that what i found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. first off and the computer effects are absolutely mind blowing. those computer wizs really deserve a pat on the back. the rest of the movie and though. none of the characters act in a realistic manner and especially in the aforementioned and despicable 3rd act (i promise i would not give it away and but trust me and it not worth keeping a secret. ). a lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally and like when they try to explain that an invisible man eyelids do not work. please and give the viewers more credit than that. some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. what would you do and after all and if you were invisible. no one could catch you. these issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic the invisible man from 1933. there is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous and and is not mentioned once later on. if more attention had been paid it and kevin bacon mad scientist might have made a little more sense. the movie would actually be much more successful as a porno and since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. but this piece of work. go see something else. or do not and and live with the consequences. 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: "i rarely make these comments but i felt compelled to spare others the pain i endured in watching this movie. it so stupid and implausible both in the overall story and in the details that you simply can not suspend disbelief. the problem starts early and when you see a government researcher tooling around in a new porsche and dining with his team in a restaraunt that looks like a castle and overlooking the capitol building in washington and d. c. that kind of life on a government salary. hah. it only gets worse. toward the end and when the bad guy starts killing off the good guys and the latter group act so stupidly that you want them to die and in order to cleanse the gene pool. the special effects are pretty good any producer money can buy that and the lead actors have been great in other films and but the screenplay and direction here are moronic. many people have wondered whether there was some deliberate intelligence behind paul verhoeven previous and facially stupid movies (showgirls and starship troopers) and but this movie should stop the wondering. he just plain bad. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "this picture started out with good intentions and bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility and and shue is cute as usual in her role. it all falls apart after that and it your typical hollywood thriller now and filmed on a soundstage with special effects galore and minus any kind of humour and wit or soul. in other words and do not waste your time watching this. get the audiocassette tape with john delancie as the invisible man instead and also starring leonard nimoy. now that was good and and hg wells is well served and unlike with this mess. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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: "c amon guys some previous reviewers have nearly written a novel commenting on this episode. it just an old 60 tv show . this episode of star trek is notable because of the most serious babe (yeoman barrow ) ever used on star trek and the fact that it was filmed in a real outdoor location. unlike the tng and voyager series which were totally confined to sound stages. this use of an outdoor location (and babe) gives proper depth and an almost film like quality to a quite ordinary episode of this now dated and very familiar show. except a few notable exceptions i. e the city on the edge of forever and assignment earth and tomorrow is yesterday the old series of star trek needs to be seriously moth balled and put out of it boring misery. half a dozen good episodes from 79 is quite a poor batting average. this is typical of the boring stuff gene roddenberry produced back then actually and contrary to popular belief where some people worshiped the ground he walked on and he actually made a lot of rubbish. he doesn not deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as irwin allen for example. just look at the set of the bridge of the enterprise from a modern point of view. they used wobbly plywood for the floor and cafeteria chairs with plastic backs and cheap cardboard above the instrument panels. you can clearly see the folds in the paper . every expense spared or what . " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.

Please analyze the following IMDB review: "okay and now what the hell is this supposed to be. is it a family fantasy movie to cash in further on the huge success of spielberg close encounters of the third kind. or a throwback to the glorious days of prehistoric epics such as when dinosaurs ruled the earth and the lost world. perhaps it an intellectual and philosophical masterpiece we all fail to comprehend. yes and that must be it. whatever it is and the creators of the day time ended (good old john bud cardos of kingdom of the spiders and writer david schmoeller of tourist trap) must have been sniffing quite a lot glue when they penned down the ideas for this demented hodgepodge of genres. the story doesn not make the slightest bit of sense and the narrative structure is incoherent as hell but and hey and who cares as long as it got papier mâché dinosaurs and miniature spacecrafts and headache inducing light and laser shows and spontaneously combusting supernovas. the voice over introduction is practically inaudible and but no worries as it all gibberish. did you know that the definition of time isn not what we all think it is. time doesn not necessarily pass by chronologically and it is one giant paradox. words that were spoken thousands of years ago are still floating around now and even things that will happen in the future are already surrounding us. i have absolutely no idea what all this means and but apparently it provides an easy excuse to gather tap dancing midget aliens and well mannered dinosaurs on screen together. i deliberately say well mannered dinosaurs and because at a certain point one of the prehistoric monsters politely knocks on the front door before menacing his targets. the crazy plot revolves on a family of weirdos living in their solar powered house in the middle of nowhere. grandpa is extremely annoying and the granddaughter even more and granny is a walking and talking advertisement billboard for plastic surgery and the youngest son strangely resembles prince valiant and the young mother is … incredibly hot. chris mitchum for some reason also pointless wanders around the filming sets as the hot mommy husband on business travel. the special effects are purely cheesy and absolutely laughable (i sincerely hope that the other reviewer who talked about excellent special effects was being sarcastic) and but the absolute most genius aspect here are the dialogs. just read this wondrous example of extraordinary writing represent grandpa represent you know what this is and do not you. this is a time space warp. stevie represent i am not quite sure if i know what that means and dadgrandpa represent well and i guess nobody really does make up your mind and gramps. do you know what it is or do not you. and stop talking about the vortex like youre some kind of expert in the field. the day time ended is an incredibly childish and not worth bothering for fantasy movie and though i can totally understand that some of its fans cherish the film because they saw it at young age and became fascinated with the flamboyant effects. the ending completely comes out of nowhere and like they suddenly ran out of money or like the effects of the mushrooms they were eating wore out unexpectedly. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 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 when it was in the theater and it started out so strong i mean back in 1980 this was a bold movie and the special effects were excellent at the time. now you would have to of been at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because studying film historically misses the mind set at the time the expectations and and other related psychological factors. now as i said the movie was engaging suspenseful and very entertaining. it builds to an excellent climax then. it ends i mean the person that described it as having a water balloon break in your hand before throwing it and besides being a very poetic description. in my experience and it was just not strong enough. my wife and i were well. how can i say this. we were upset and i mean we paid money and invested the time to watch the movie which was excellent. we both felt we were robbed with an ending that convinced us both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly. in fact my wife said it best and it did not end and it just stopped. " You might take into account that star ratings and expressions like "xx out of" or "/10" are very important. Generally, ratings greater than half are considered positive(This label may not exist, so it's not necessary). If the sentiment of the review is positive, reply with 1; if the sentiment of the review is negative, reply with 0. Do not provide any additional comments, just reply with 1 or 0.